Woolworths Limited v Day - [2016] QDC 81

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Woolworths Limited v Day & Others [2016] QDC 81

PARTIES:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED ACN 000 014 675

(applicant)

v

OLGA DAY

(first respondent)

and

CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 063 244 824

(second respondent)

and

RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD ACN 111 852 129

(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

224/16

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

23/03/2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22/02/2016

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

The date for the compulsory conference is set at 22 April 2016.1.

On or before 15 April 2016, Woolworths must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 14 October 2015 by Q16 – Q19 and Q21 – Q25 and also with a floorplan of the area in the vicinity of her fall showing the location and direction of the cameras as they applied on the day of the fall.2.

On or before 15 April 2016, Retail Activation must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 13 August 2015 by Q5. 3.

Otherwise, all applications are dismissed.4.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS – PRE-TRIAL PROCESS –Where claimant injured in a slip and fall incident – where claimant applied to inspect the premises to undertake tests, for disclosure of information and to amend her notice of claim and for orders regarding alleged conflicts of interest – where Woolworths applied to dispense with compulsory conference – where respondents applied for orders regarding claimants communications with the parties – whether orders should be made.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2003 s27, s14(2)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2002 s7
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r250

Hartley v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd Unreported, No. 13 of 1995, District Court of Queensland, followed
Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276, applied
JK International Pty Ltd v International Comtrade & Shipping Ltd [2005] QSC 026, followed
Karaka v Woolworths Ltd Unreported, No. 597 of 2009, Supreme Court of Queensland, followed
King & Anor v Milpurrurru & Ors (1996) 136 ALR 327, considered
Oliver v Mulp (2009) QSC 340, followed
RACQ/Gio Insurance Ltd v Ogilvie [2002] 1 Qd R 536, applied
Ridley Agriproducts Pty Ltd v SMAS Consulting Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 284, considered
Shapcott v W.R. Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited & Anor [2015] QDC 102, considered
Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91, followed

COUNSEL:

G. O’Driscoll for the Applicant

SOLICITORS:

DLA Piper for the Applicant

O. Day, self-represented for the 1^st Respondent

S. Carter, Gadens Lawyers for the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents

Olga Day was injured on 18 December 2014, when she slipped on a shallot on the floor of a Woolworths Store in the Orion Shopping Centre, Springfield. Pre-litigation processes under the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (PIPA) are in progress. Mrs Day has proceeded against Woolworths Limited and 2 other companies, CPM Australia Pty Ltd and Retail Activation Pty Ltd, because of their connection to a demonstration table operated…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Woolworths Limited v Day

Details

AGLC: Woolworths Limited v Day [2016] QDC 81
Case: [2016] QDC 81
Decision Date: 23/03/2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Limited and another party, Retail Activation, were involved in a dispute with Mrs Day, who claimed she was injured in a slip and fall incident at a Woolworths store. Mrs Day sought various pre-trial orders, including the right to inspect the premises, obtain specific information, amend her notice of claim, and address potential conflicts of interest. Woolworths sought to waive the compulsory conference, while the respondents sought orders regarding Mrs Day's communications with the parties. The court had to determine whether to grant the requested pre-trial orders.

The primary legal issues the court addressed were the admissibility and relevance of the information Mrs Day sought, the necessity of the compulsory conference, and the appropriateness of the orders concerning Mrs Day's communications. The court had to balance the rights of the parties under the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and consider the practicalities and fairness of the proceedings.

The court found that certain information, including the requested floorplan and specific questions, should be provided to Mrs Day before the compulsory conference. The court held that the compulsory conference was necessary and should proceed as scheduled. The court dismissed the other applications as they did not meet the required threshold or were not relevant to the proceedings.

The court ordered Woolworths to provide specific information to Mrs Day by a certain date, set the date for the compulsory conference, and dismissed the other applications. The court also ordered Retail Activation to provide specific information to Mrs Day by the same date.

Orders

Orders of the court

The date for the compulsory conference is set at 22 April 2016.1.

On or before 15 April 2016, Woolworths must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 14 October 2015 by Q16 – Q19 and Q21 – Q25 and also with a floorplan of the area in the vicinity of her fall showing the location and direction of the cameras as they applied on the day of the fall.2.

On or before 15 April 2016, Retail Activation must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 13 August 2015 by Q5. 3.

Otherwise, all applications are dismissed.4.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Woolworths Limited v Day & Others [2016] QDC 81
PARTIES:	WOOLWORTHS LIMITED ACN 000 014 675 (applicant) v OLGA DAY (first respondent) and CPM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 063 244 824 (second respondent) and RETAIL ACTIVATION PTY LTD ACN 111 852 129 (third respondent)
FILE NO/S:	224/16
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	23/03/2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22/02/2016
JUDGE:	Kingham DCJ
ORDER:	The date for the compulsory conference is set at 22 April 2016.1. On or before 15 April 2016, Woolworths must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 14 October 2015 by Q16 – Q19 and Q21 – Q25 and also with a floorplan of the area in the vicinity of her fall showing the location and direction of the cameras as they applied on the day of the fall.2. On or before 15 April 2016, Retail Activation must provide Mrs Day with the information requested on 13 August 2015 by Q5. 3. Otherwise, all applications are dismissed.4.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS – PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS – PRE-TRIAL PROCESS –Where claimant injured in a slip and fall incident – where claimant applied to inspect the premises to undertake tests, for disclosure of information and to amend her notice of claim and for orders regarding alleged conflicts of interest – where Woolworths applied to dispense with compulsory conference – where respondents applied for orders regarding claimants communications with the parties – whether orders should be made. Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2003 s27, s14(2) Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2002 s7 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r250 Hartley v Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd Unreported, No. 13 of 1995, District Court of Queensland, followed Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276, applied JK International Pty Ltd v International Comtrade & Shipping Ltd [2005] QSC 026, followed Karaka v Woolworths Ltd Unreported, No. 597 of 2009, Supreme Court of Queensland, followed King & Anor v Milpurrurru & Ors (1996) 136 ALR 327, considered Oliver v Mulp (2009) QSC 340, followed RACQ/Gio Insurance Ltd v Ogilvie [2002] 1 Qd R 536, applied Ridley Agriproducts Pty Ltd v SMAS Consulting Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 284, considered Shapcott v W.R. Berkley Insurance (Europe) Limited & Anor [2015] QDC 102, considered Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91, followed
COUNSEL:	G. O’Driscoll for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	DLA Piper for the Applicant O. Day, self-represented for the 1^st Respondent S. Carter, Gadens Lawyers for the 2^nd & 3^rd Respondents