Zanatta v Netpro Employees Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 131

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

FRYBERG J [2004] QSC 131

No 3044 of 2004

KURT RAYMOND ZANATTA

Applicant

and

NETPRO EMPLOYEES PTY LTD
(ACN 074 257 891)
FORMERLY GCR PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR GCR UNIT TRUST TRADING AS NETPRO

and

WORKCOVER QLD

and

KANGAROO ISLAND ABALONE PTY LTD
(ACN 070 196 235)

First Respondent

Second Respondent

Third Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/04/2004

ORDER

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for a declaration that the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 does not apply to a proceeding brought by the applicant against Kangaroo Island Abalone Proprietary Limited ("the abalone company"). The application as filed originally sought other relief against two other respondents, but that part of the application is no longer live, the parties having reached agreement in relation to it and disposed of it by a consent order filed yesterday.

Although it is not altogether clear from the application that the declaration to which I have referred is sought to bind only the abalone company, I am informed by counsel that that is the intention and that any declaration which is framed as a result of the application can be so limited. Consequently, I have proceeded today on the basis that only the abalone company is a respondent to the application and have not had the other respondents called.

The applicant wishes to begin proceedings for personal injuries.

He was injured on 27 April 2001 whilst engaged in the course of his employment by the first respondent in work at Kangaroo Island, South Australia. The work involved the installation of shade netting over abalone tanks at an abalone farm. I assume, for the purposes of this application, that it took place above the high water mark.

The applicant claims that he was injured when he fell from a ladder as a result of its slipping or shifting and that this occurred as a result, among other things, of the negligence of the abalone company.

Unless s 77A of the PIPA applies, the period of three years permitted in Queensland for commencing proceedings for personal injuries has almost expired. The respondent is a South Australian company. The injury occurred and the tort was allegedly committed in South Australia. The applicant wishes to proceed against the abalone company if possible without jumping through the hoops prescribed by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act.

It seems to me that the declaration ought to be granted. In my view, the relevant parts of the Act do not apply to proceedings of the sort contemplated by the applicant.

Section 7 of the PIPA provides:

"Provisions of this Act that provide for the kinds of damage and the amount of damages that may be recovered and the provisions of chapter 2, part 1, divisions 1,1A, 2 and 4, are provisions of substantive as opposed to procedural law."

Chapter 2 includes the hoops through which the applicant must

jump if the Act applies. In the present case the tort was

committed in South Australia. The decision in John…

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 Zanatta v Netpro Employees 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

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: [2004] QSC 131
Decision Date: 23/04/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Zanatta v Netpro Employees Pty Ltd, the applicant, Kurt Raymond Zanatta, sought a declaration that the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA) does not apply to a proceeding he intended to bring against Kangaroo Island Abalone Pty Ltd (the Abalone Company) for personal injuries sustained at an abalone farm on Kangaroo Island, South Australia. The injury occurred on 27 April 2001, while Zanatta was employed by Netpro Employees Pty Ltd, working at the Abalone Company's farm. Zanatta claimed that he was injured when he fell from a ladder, which slipped or shifted, allegedly due to the negligence of the Abalone Company. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the provisions of PIPA, which govern personal injury proceedings in Queensland, apply to actions involving injuries occurring outside Queensland, specifically in South Australia. The court needed to determine if the substantive provisions of the Act, particularly those that govern the kinds of damages and the amount of damages recoverable, and the procedural requirements set out in Chapter 2, Part 1, Divisions 1, 1A, 2 and 4, apply to proceedings against an out-of-state entity for injuries occurring in another jurisdiction.

The court considered that the substantive law applicable to the case was the law of South Australia, as determined by the decision in John Pfeffer Proprietary Limited v Rogerson. It concluded that, in the absence of any statutory indication that the provisions of PIPA must apply in all cases regardless of the substantive law of the case, they do not apply when the tort was committed outside Queensland. The court found that the provisions of PIPA that specify the kinds of damages and the amount of damages that may be recovered, along with the procedural requirements, do not apply to the proceedings Zanatta intended to bring against the Abalone Company. Consequently, the court granted the declaration sought by Zanatta, limiting it to those parts of PIPA specified in section 7. The Abalone Company was ordered to pay the costs of and incidental to the application, to be assessed.

Orders