WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Limited - [2011] QSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Limited and Anor [2011] QSC 282

PARTIES:

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(Plaintiff)

v

AMACA PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 035 512)
(First Defendant)

and

SELTSAM PTY LTD (ACN 000 003 734)
(Second Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 5399 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 September 2011

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

The parties are to prepare minutes of orders in accordance with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – PARTICULARS – where the second defendant seeks further and better particulars to ascertain details of any positive case asserted by the plaintiff – where that application is opposed by the plaintiff on the basis it has sufficiently particularised its case – whether the particulars sought are in the nature of interrogatories – whether the present pleading sufficiently identifies the case the second defendant is to meet

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff seeks further and better disclosure from the second defendant pursuant to either rr 211 and 223(1) and (4) of the UCPR or alternatively r 367 of the UCPR – where the plaintiff submits the documents sought tend to prove or disprove an allegation in contention in the pleadings – where the plaintiff submits the documents sought will be in the possession or control of the respondent – where the second defendant submits the application amounts to a fishing expedition – whether the making of an order for further and better disclosure would be oppressive in all of the circumstances

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158

Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Keppell Cairncross Shipyard Ltd [2004] QSC 379

GW Young and Co Ltd v Scottish Union and National Insurance Company (1907) 24 TLR 73

Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 37

Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276

Seltsam Pty Ltd v McNeill [2006] NSW CA 158

Visionmax Pty Ltd v Budget Specks (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 222

COUNSEL:

K Holyoak for the plaintiff

TGR Parker, SC for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the plaintiff

CLS Lawyers for the defendants

WorkCover Queensland (“WorkCover”) claims recovery, by way of statutory indemnity, of workers compensation benefits paid to Rex Noel Thomson. By application filed 30 August 2011, the second defendant, Seltsam Pty Ltd (“Seltsam”) sought further and better particulars of WorkCover’s claim. By application filed 31 August 2011 WorkCover seeks further and better disclosure from Seltsam. Each application is opposed.

The claim

WorkCover alleges that between 1947 and 1983 Thomson inhaled asbestos in the course of building work, from using products made by James Hardie and Wunderlich. Amaca Pty Limited (“Amaca”) is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] QSC 282
Decision Date: 5 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WorkCover Queensland initiated proceedings against Amaca Pty Limited in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff alleged breaches of statutory duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and sought damages. The dispute centred around whether Amaca Pty Limited adequately fulfilled its obligations under the Act and whether its actions led to harm for which compensation was due. The second defendant in the proceedings sought further and better particulars from the plaintiff to clarify the specifics of the claims made, arguing that the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficiently detailed. The plaintiff opposed this application, asserting that it had sufficiently outlined the case against the defendant.

The court examined the nature of the particulars sought by the second defendant and whether they were akin to interrogatories, which are generally not permitted in pleadings. It also assessed whether the plaintiff's pleadings adequately identified the case the second defendant needed to prepare for. The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings, while not exhaustive, were sufficient to inform the second defendant of the allegations it faced and did not warrant the level of specificity requested. Furthermore, the court considered the plaintiff's application for further and better disclosure, scrutinising whether the documents sought were pertinent to proving or disproving the allegations in the pleadings and whether the application constituted a fishing expedition. The court ruled that the plaintiff's request for further disclosure was not oppressive and was necessary to substantiate the claims made, but it also cautioned against allowing fishing expeditions.

In light of the court's findings, it dismissed the second defendant's application for further and better particulars and allowed the plaintiff's application for further and better disclosure, subject to certain conditions to prevent the proceedings from becoming overly burdensome. The court emphasised the importance of clarity in pleadings and the necessity for parties to provide sufficient information to enable a fair trial while avoiding excessive demands on the opposing party.

Orders

Orders of the court

The parties are to prepare minutes of orders in accordance with these reasons.

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:	WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Limited and Anor [2011] QSC 282
PARTIES:	WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (Plaintiff) v AMACA PTY LIMITED (ACN 000 035 512) (First Defendant) and SELTSAM PTY LTD (ACN 000 003 734) (Second Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 5399 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	5 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 September 2011
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	The parties are to prepare minutes of orders in accordance with these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – PARTICULARS – where the second defendant seeks further and better particulars to ascertain details of any positive case asserted by the plaintiff – where that application is opposed by the plaintiff on the basis it has sufficiently particularised its case – whether the particulars sought are in the nature of interrogatories – whether the present pleading sufficiently identifies the case the second defendant is to meet PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff seeks further and better disclosure from the second defendant pursuant to either rr 211 and 223(1) and (4) of the UCPR or alternatively r 367 of the UCPR – where the plaintiff submits the documents sought tend to prove or disprove an allegation in contention in the pleadings – where the plaintiff submits the documents sought will be in the possession or control of the respondent – where the second defendant submits the application amounts to a fishing expedition – whether the making of an order for further and better disclosure would be oppressive in all of the circumstances Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Amaca Pty Ltd v Hannell [2007] WASCA 158 Company Solutions (Aust) Pty Ltd v Keppell Cairncross Shipyard Ltd [2004] QSC 379 GW Young and Co Ltd v Scottish Union and National Insurance Company (1907) 24 TLR 73 Julia Farr Services Inc v Hayes [2003] NSWCA 37 Mercantile Mutual Custodians Pty Ltd v Village/Nine Network Restaurants & Bars Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 276 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McNeill [2006] NSW CA 158 Visionmax Pty Ltd v Budget Specks (Franchising) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 222
COUNSEL:	K Holyoak for the plaintiff TGR Parker, SC for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the plaintiff CLS Lawyers for the defendants