SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
WorkCover Queensland v AMACA Pty Limited [2012] QCA 240
PARTIES:
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
v
AMACA PTY LIMITED (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd under NSW administered winding up)
(first respondent)FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 11786 of 2011
SC No 13258 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
7 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
17 May 2012
JUDGES:
Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The orders made in the application on 9 December 2011 are set aside.
3. The separate question “Is the assignment pleaded in paragraphs 8A, 8B, 8C of the amended statement of claim valid at law to assign to the plaintiff the benefit of the cause of action of the estate of Douglas John Rourke against the defendant”, be answered, “Yes”.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application and to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS – OTHER – where a worker died of workplace related mesothelioma – where prior to his death he had applied to the appellant for statutory compensation pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where the worker also commenced proceedings for damages for personal injuries against the respondent – where the appellant paid statutory compensation – where the worker’s personal representative assigned the whole of the worker’s causes of action to the appellant – where the appellant was not to profit from the assignment so that any recovered damages exceeding the compensation paid to the worker, together with costs and outlays, were to be held on trust for the worker’s estate – whether the assignment is lawful – whether the appellant had a genuine commercial interest in the assigned causes of action
Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), s 199
Succession Act 1981 (Qld), s 66
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 207BBrownton Ltd v Edward Moore Inbucon Ltd [1985] 3 All ER 499, cited
Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380, cited
Dawson v Great Northern and City Railway Co [1905] 1 KB 260, cited
Elfic Ltd v Macks [2003] 2 Qd R 125; (2001) 181 ALR 1; [2001] QCA 219, cited
Ellis v Torrington [1920] 1 KB 399, cited
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton (2012) 86 ALJR 296; [2012] HCA 7, cited
Fredrickson v Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (1986) 28 DLR (4th) 414, considered
Giles v Thompson [1994] 1 AC 142; [1993] UKHL 2, cited
Glegg v Bromley [1912] 3 KB 474, cited
King v Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [1896] AC 250, cited
Meacock v Bryant & Co [1942] 2 All ER 661, cited
Poulton v The Commonwealth (1952) 89 CLR 540
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read WorkCover Queensland v Amaca Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QCA 240
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the assignment of the causes of action from the deceased's estate to WorkCover Queensland was lawful under the circumstances presented. The central issue was whether the assignment complied with legal principles governing assignments of causes of action, particularly in relation to the requirement that the assignee must have a genuine commercial interest in the litigation. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the conditions attached to the assignment, specifically the no-profit condition, rendered it invalid or otherwise affected its enforceability.
The court held that the assignment was valid. It found that WorkCover Queensland had a genuine commercial interest in the litigation as it was responsible for compensating the deceased worker for his injuries and would benefit from the recovery of damages that could potentially reimburse the statutory compensation it had already paid. The court also noted that the conditions attached to the assignment, including the no-profit condition, did not invalidate the assignment. Rather, they reflected the equitable nature of the arrangement, ensuring that any excess recovered would be held on trust for the deceased's estate.
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders made on 9 December 2011, and answered the question of the validity of the assignment in the affirmative. The respondent, Amaca Pty Ltd, was ordered to pay WorkCover Queensland's costs of and incidental to the application and to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The orders made in the application on 9 December 2011 are set aside.
3. The separate question “Is the assignment pleaded in paragraphs 8A, 8B, 8C of the amended statement of claim valid at law to assign to the plaintiff the benefit of the cause of action of the estate of Douglas John Rourke against the defendant”, be answered, “Yes”.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application and to the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
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.