DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91
PARTIES:
ROBYN JOY WRIGHT
Applicant
AND
KB NUT HOLDINGS PTY LTD
Respondent
FILE NO/S:
OA 3567/09
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
19 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
25 January 2010
JUDGE:
McGill DCJ
ORDER:
Order that the respondent within 21 days provide the following information to the extent that it is in the respondent’s possession, verified by statutory declaration:
(a) the time at which the inspection on 18 April 2009 referred to in the affidavit of Mr Kallis on behalf of the respondent took place;
(b) full particulars as to the outcome of that inspection, that is, details of what was found on that inspection;
(c) whether any hypodermic needles or other drug related utensils were found during the course of that inspection; and
(d) whether any records were kept of that inspection.
Application otherwise dismissed.
No order as to costs.CATCHWORDS:
NEGLIGENCE – Personal Injuries – pre-litigation procedures – obligation to disclose information – scope of – whether failure to comply
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 27(1)(b)(i)
Aroutsidis v Illawarra Nominees Pty Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 500 – cited.
Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v Higgs [2006] QDC 81 – cited.
Broadhead v State of Queensland [2006] QDC 273 – considered.
Commissioner for Railways v Beach (1938) 12 ALJ 39 – cited.
Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2008] 1 Qd R 276 – applied.
Haug v Jupiters Ltd [2007] QSC 68 – followed.
Hill v Kirsten Bay Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 68 – not followed.
Jackson v Vaughan [1966] 2 NSWR 147 – cited.
Lahrs v Eichsteadt [1961] Qd R 457 – cited.
Oliver v Mulp Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 340 – followed.
Pomery v Rural Hotels Pty Ltd (1973) 5 SASR 191 – cited.
RACQ-GIO Insurance Ltd v Ogilvie [2002] 1 Qd R 536 – applied.
Wirth v Tuckey [1949] QWN 42 – cited.
Wolski v ALH Group Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 202 – considered.
Woolworths Ltd v Graham [2007] QDC 301 – followed.COUNSEL:
R.D. Green for the applicant
The respondent appeared in person
SOLICITORS:
Shine Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent was not represented
This is an application for an order under s 35(1) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (“the Act”) that the respondent provide certain information sought by the applicant, which the applicant submits the respondent is required to provide by s 27(1)(b) of the Act.
By a letter dated 16 October 2009 the solicitors for the applicant sought the information identified in seven paragraphs, verified by way of statutory declaration.[1] The respondent has provided certain information in the form of an affidavit by Mr Kallis who deposed to being the sole director of the respondent at the relevant time,[2] but the applicant submits that not all of the information sought has been provided, and seeks specifically a response to paragraphs 3(a), (c), (d), and (e), 6 and 7 of…
Continue reading Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Wright v KB Nut Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] QDC 91
- Case
- [2010] QDC 91
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the defendant's failure to disclose specific details about the inspection, such as the time it occurred, its outcomes, whether any drug-related utensils were found, and whether records of the inspection were maintained, constituted a breach of the pre-litigation disclosure obligations. The court's analysis focused on the scope and adequacy of the information provided by the defendant in relation to the inspection. It was critical to assess whether the defendant's omissions were material and whether they impeded the plaintiff's ability to pursue their claim effectively.
In its reasoning, the court found that while the defendant had disclosed some information, it had not provided all the details required under the pre-litigation procedures. The court concluded that the defendant had failed to adequately disclose certain aspects of the inspection, which were material to the plaintiff's case. Consequently, the court ordered the defendant to furnish the specific information within 21 days, verified by statutory declaration. The application was otherwise dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Order that the respondent within 21 days provide the following information to the extent that it is in the respondent’s possession, verified by statutory declaration:
(a) the time at which the inspection on 18 April 2009 referred to in the affidavit of Mr Kallis on behalf of the respondent took place;
(b) full particulars as to the outcome of that inspection, that is, details of what was found on that inspection;
(c) whether any hypodermic needles or other drug related utensils were found during the course of that inspection; and
(d) whether any records were kept of that inspection.
Application otherwise dismissed.
No order as to costs.
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.