WorkCover Queensland v Klinger Limited (No 1)

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

WorkCover Queensland v Klinger Limited (No 1) [2021] QDC 55

PARTIES:

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND

(plaintiff)

v

KLINGER LIMITED
(ACN 008 679 838)

(defendant)

FILE NO:

D692/2019

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2021

JUDGE:

Jarro DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The proceedings be tried consecutively or in partial consecutive sequence with each other.

2.   I will hear from the parties further as to the form of the order, consequential directions and costs. 

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND OF PARTIES – PARTIES – GENERALLY – where claimants received damages from the plaintiff for workplace injuries – where the plaintiff instituted proceedings for indemnification of the damages from the defendant – where the plaintiff instituted separate proceedings against the defendant for damages paid to two different claimants – where an application was brought to hear the proceedings consecutively or in partial consecutive sequence with each other – whether orders should be made to have the proceedings heard together

LEGISLATION:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

CASES:

Wan & Anor v Merlot Gordon & Ors [2019] QSC 142, applied

Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 699, applied

COUNSEL:

K Holyoak for the plaintiff

M Grant-Taylor QC with A Giurtalis for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

BT Lawyers for the plaintiff

Baker McKenzie Lawyers for the defendant

Introduction

1. The plaintiff has applied to join two existing proceedings or to have the two proceedings be heard in consecutive or partial consecutive sequence pursuant to r 79 of the UCPR.  The application is opposed. 

2. Rule 79 of the UCPR allows the court discretion to order that two or more proceedings be heard together or in a particular sequence.  In Wan & Anor v Merlot Gordon & Ors [2019] QSC 142, Crow J has usefully encapsulated the matters which ought to be considered in exercising the broad and unfettered discretion of r 79. His Honour stated:

   “[20] Rule 79 of the UCPR provides:

   ‘The court may order that 2 or more proceedings be heard together or in a particular sequence.’

   [21]        In Bishop v Bridgelands Securities[1]  Wilcox J said:

   [1](1990) 25 FCR 311, 314

   ‘The basic principle, as it seems to me, is that the Court should take whatever course seems to be most conducive to a just resolution of the disputes between the parties, but having regard to the desirability of limiting, so far as practicable, the costs and delay of the litigation. Considerations of costs and delay may often support the grant of leave under subr (b); but, in my opinion, leave ought not to be granted unless the Court is affirmatively satisfied that joinder is unlikely to result in unfairness to any party.’

   [22]In Ghose v CX Reinsurance Company Ltd & Ors[2] Austin J said:

   [2][2010]…