Public liability

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Dangerous Recreational Activities | Contract Claims & Intentional Torts

Dangerous Recreational Activities | Contract Claims & Intentional Torts

Dangerous Recreational Activities | Contract Claims & Intentional Torts

Dangerous Recreational Activities – Dangerous Recreational Activities Qld – Dangerous Recreational Activities Civil Liability Act – Dangerous Recreational Activities CLA – Dangerous Recreational Activities Cases – Dangerous Recreational Activities Examples – What is a dangerous recreational activity? – Duty of Care Legislation Qld

What is a dangerous recreational activity?

Section 18 of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld) (CLA QLD) defines a dangerous recreational activity as:

‘an activity engaged in for enjoyment, relaxation or leisure that involves a significant degree of risk of physical harm to a person’.

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

The CLA QLD limits the ability of injured Plaintiffs to recover damages in negligence for personal injuries that arise out of dangerous recreational activities.

Under section 19 of the CLA QLD, a person is not liable in negligence for harm suffered by another person as a result of the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by a person.

Section 17 of the CLA QLD states:

’17  Application of div

This division applies only in relation to liability in negligence for harm to a person resulting from a dangerous recreational activity engaged in by the plaintiff.’

But proving that a Plaintiff was engaged in a dangerous recreational activity under the CLA QLD isn’t always straightfoward. A decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland last year highlighted an issue for Defendants seeking to raise the defence.

Ireland v B & M Outboard Repairs

In Ireland v B& M Outboard Repairs [2015] QSC 084, the Defendants argued that the Plaintiff was engaged in a dangerous recreational activity.

The Court rejected the Defendant’s submission that section 19 of the CLA QLD applied; principally, because the activity did not involve an obvious risk. However, the Court made an additional comment that section 19 would not apply because section 17 refers to liability in negligence only and not, to an action for breach of contract.

Liability in Negligence

Unlike the Civil Liability Act NSW (2002) (CLA NSW), the CLA QLD does not define the word ‘negligence’.

Without a definition, one might assume the phrase ‘liability in negligence’ means an action in negligence and not, an action in contract or, an intentional tort. In the first reading speech for the Civil Liability Bill 2003 (Qld), Parliament said that the dangerous recreational activities provisions would change the ‘conventional law of negligence’ – as opposed to the law of contract or, the law of torts.

Considerations

Plaintiffs may frame their claims to avoid the dangerous recreational activity defence under the CLA QLD. However, the interpretation of section 17 is yet to be judicially determined. The comments in Ireland were in obiter. That said, if Ireland’s reasoning is applied, Defendants will not be assisted by section 19 of the CLA QLD against a claim in contract.

Parties to claims involving recreational activities which may be ‘dangerous’ may wish to consider the following:

  • the application of the obvious risk provisions under the CLA QLD
  • any contract between the parties
  • whether the contract between the parties was for the dangerous recreational activity itself (compared with transportation or equipment hire)
  • the application of Commonwealth legislation such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) to the claim
  • any defects or flaws in equipment in use
  • signage, advertising and manufacturers specifications or notifications
  • facts suggesting an intentional tort
  • insurance coverage issues arising from an action in contract against the Defendant or an intentional tort

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
February 29, 2016 Kate Denning ,
Kate DenningDangerous Recreational Activities | Contract Claims & Intentional Torts
Read more

Section 54 Insurance Contracts Act – what’s not an ‘act’?

Section 54 Insurance Contracts Act – what’s not an ‘act’?

Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act – what’s not an ‘act’?

Section 54 Insurance Contracts Act – Section 54 Insurance Contracts Act Summary – Section 54 ICA – Maxwell v Highway Hauliers Pty Ltd

Case note: Allianz Insurance Ltd v Inglis [2016] WASCA 25

This was an appeal by Allianz Insurance Ltd (Allianz) to the Court of Appeal (WA) (Court). The case concerned a preliminary question about the application of section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth), based on an agreed set of facts.

The question to be decided was whether, on the proper construction of an Allianz Sure Cover Plus home insurance policy (Allianz Policy), Allianz was required to indemnify its Insureds for their liability to the Defendants.

The Insureds succeeded at District Court level. Our summary of that decision is here. Allianz sought leave to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal (WA) (Court).

Section 54 Insurance Contracts Act

Section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) states:

‘(1)  Subject to this section, where the effect of a contract of insurance would, but for this section, be that the insurer may refuse to pay a claim, either in whole or in part, by reason of some act of the insured or of some other person, being an act that occurred after the contract was entered into but not being an act in respect of which subsection (2) applies, the insurer may not refuse to pay the claim by reason only of that act but the insurer’s liability in respect of the claim is reduced by the amount that fairly represents the extent to which the insurer’s interests were prejudiced as a result of that act.

(2)  Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, where the act could reasonably be regarded as being capable of causing or contributing to a loss in respect of which insurance cover is provided by the contract, the insurer may refuse to pay the claim.’

The Facts

The Plaintiff, Ms Georgia Inglis (Georgia) (aged 10) alleges that she was run over by a ride-on lawnmower operated by the First Defendant, Mr Stephen Sweeney (Stephen) (aged 11).

Georgia is the daughter of Mr Stuart Inglis and Mrs Linda Inglis (Georgia’s parents).  Mr Stuart Inglis owned the ride-on lawnmower.  Georgia lived with her parents.  Georgia’s parents were named insureds under the Allianz Policy.

It is alleged that on 17 October 2004, Mr James Inglis (James) (aged 12), Georgia’s brother, rode the lawnmower from Georgia’s parents’ house, to the Second and Third Defendants’ house.  The Second and Third Defendants are the parents of Stephen.

Stephen ran over Georgia in a game that involved Georgia being towed behind Stephen on the ride-on lawnmower. Georgia brought claims against the Defendants. The Defendants brought claims against Mr Stuart Inglis and Georgia’s brother, James (the Insureds).  The Insureds brought claims against Allianz, for indemnity under the Allianz Policy.

The Allianz Policy

Insuring clause

The Allianz Policy contained the following clause relating to cover for injury to other people:

‘… We will cover your legal liability for payment of compensation in respect of:

  • death, bodily injury or illness…’

Exclusion clause

The Allianz Policy contained an exclusion clause which read:

‘What you are not covered for:

  1. We will not cover your legal liability for: …
  2. injury to any person who normally lives with you, or damage to their property;’

Allianz denied indemnity under the Allianz Policy.

The Submissions

Allianz submitted that the expression ‘a person who normally lives with you’ did not contain or constitute an ‘act’ under section 54(1) but instead, was a state of affairs or, the status or description of a person.

It was the submission of the Insureds that the act must have occurred or (if continuous) be occurring at the time of the accident. The Insureds argued that this was mandated by the word ‘lives’ in the expression, ‘a person who normally lives with you’. The Insureds did not suggest any other ‘act’ engaged section 54(1).

The Findings

In the judgment dated 3 February 2016, the Court allowed the appeal by Allianz, finding:

  1. ‘Act’ means something done or being done by a person. It is different from a state of affairs or the result of an act. Assistance in understanding the distinction between these things may be drawn from criminal law.
  2. The fact that a ‘person normally lives with’ an insured does not constitute an ‘act’ within the meaning of section 54(1).

The Court rejected the argument by Allianz that the Insureds’ claims were in respect of liability of a kind not dealt with by the Allianz Policy.

Considerations

It remains difficult for insurers to establish that a relevant liability falls outside of the scope of cover under a policy.

However, the argument put forward by Allianz that an ‘act’ under section 54 of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) is not:

  • a state of affairs;
  • the status of a person;
  • the description of a person,

could be used in support of an insurer’s decision to exclude cover in a variety of circumstances.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about your insurance problem by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
February 7, 2016 Kate Denning ,
Kate DenningSection 54 Insurance Contracts Act – what’s not an ‘act’?
Read more

Contributory negligence finding of 50% against pipeline worker

Contributory negligence finding of 50% against pipeline worker

Case note: Kennedy v Queensland Aluminia Limited [2015] QSC 317

Contributory Negligence Cases Qld – Contributory Negligence Meaning – Contributory Negligence Workers Compensation – Contributory Negligence at Work – Contributory Negligence Accident at Work – Contributory Negligence WorkCover – Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act – Workers Compensation Lawyers for Employers – Workers Compensation Lawyers Qld – Employer Negligence – Employer Negligence Duty of Care

The Supreme Court of Queensland has made a finding of 50% for contributory negligence against a pipeline worker who suffered burns from caustic liquid after failing to follow the training and procedures of his employer.

The Facts

Mr Paul Kennedy (Plaintiff) brought a claim for damages against his employer, Queensland Aluminia Limited (Employer).

The Plaintiff was required to break open a vertical pipe and to replace a “blind” on a section of it. The pipe conveyed caustic solution. The Plaintiff was aware that if the pipe was not isolated effectively from the tank overhead, caustic could emerge from the pipe and it would cause severe burns if he came into contact with it.

The Plaintiff touched the pipe noting that it was hot and believed that it was “live” or “energised”. He closed the pump suction valve by turning a hex nut to what he thought was the closed position. He actually opened the valve. The hex nut was not marked to show when it was opened or closed.

The Plaintiff loosened three bolts on the flange at the base of the pipe where he intended to insert the blind. A “show of liquor” came from the open section of the flange at a steady pace and then the stream reduced to a dribble. He left the task for a break and returned to it half an hour later.

On return, no further caustic was coming from the pipe. He removed the rest of the bolts and while in a kneeling position the caustic shot out, striking him in the chest and face.

The Issue

The Court considered that there were two reasons why the incident occurred:

  1. The Plaintiff opened the pump suction valve instead of closing it.
  2. The Plaintiff did not prove isolation.

The Employer admitted liability for the claim but said that the Plaintiff was contributorily negligent for failing to prove isolation.

The Training

The Employer had a standard procedure for proving isolation. A witness for the Employer explained that in such a situation, a worker is expected to shut the suction valve and open the drain leg by removing the cap. The worker is to use a probe to probe the drain leg to get the flow. The worker is to then open the suction valve to witness the flow. When the flow has stopped, the worker has proved isolation.

The Plaintiff’s evidence at trial demonstrated an inconsistency between his understanding of how to prove isolation and the actual procedure the Employer required staff to follow. The Plaintiff simply turned off the suction valve and then proceeded to open the pipe. The Plaintiff believed that he should break into the pipe “to prove drainage”.

The Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff knew of the use that ought to have been made of the probe. It was set out in a documented tagging procedure. The Plaintiff had seen a power point slide relating to the procedure. A witness for the Employer said that the task the Plaintiff was undertaking was not complex and it was one that staff would be competent to perform after six months in the job. The Plaintiff had been working for the Employer for three years at the time of the incident. He had been promoted and had tag competencies.

The Judgment

In a judgment delivered on 18 November 2015 The Honourable Justice McMeekin found as follows:

  1. The Employer failed to ensure that there was an adequate system of marking the valves to ensure that an operator knew when they were opening or closing them.
  2. The Plaintiff had been adequately trained. He would not have been promoted and given tag competencies, if he was not completely familiar with the Employer’s procedures. He failed to follow instructions in proving the isolation of the system. He had no excuse for doing so. That involved a significant departure from safety procedures.
  3. The Plaintiff’s actions went well beyond “mere inadvertence, inattention or misjudgment”. The Employer’s system was intended to cater for a mistake. The possibility of a valve not being effective was at the heart of the Employer’s system. Had the Plaintiff done as he had been taught, the open valve would have been identified and the work not undertaken.
  4. Liability should be apportioned between the Employer and the Plaintiff 50/50.

His Honour also commented that it was “trite law” that the onus lies on an employer to establish contributory negligence.

Considerations

Here, the Employer established a significant reduction for contributory negligence despite:

  • pleading limited particulars of its case for contributory negligence; and
  • the fact that it could not call a witness who could claim to have directly taught the Plaintiff the procedures.

The case illustrates how important it is for employers and host employers to persist with allegations of contributory negligence where a worker has departed from the Employer’s documented safety procedures and training.

This case will be of particular interest to those working in industries involving isolation and tagging procedures – e.g. mining, gas, infrastructure.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
November 23, 2015 Kate Denning , ,
Kate DenningContributory negligence finding of 50% against pipeline worker
Read more

No compensation for degenerative disc disease

No compensation for degenerative disc disease

Kirby v Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) [2015] QIRC 184

Workers Compensation for Pre-Existing Condition – Workers Comp for Degenerative Disc – Workers Compensation for Back Pain – Workers Compensation for Back Injury – Workers Compensation Lawyers Qld – Workers Compensation Lawyers for Employers – Dispute Insurance Claim

The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) has refused the appeal of a worker seeking compensation for degenerative disc disease.

The Facts

Ms Kaye Kirby (Appellant) underwent a spinal fusion to her L1 – L3 discs in 1991.

In about 2001, she started working for InvoCare Australia Pty Ltd (InvoCare) as a Funeral Manager. She told InvoCare about her pre-employment spinal surgery.

In 2010, she started to suffer back pain and in 2011, sciatica. The Appellant brought a common law claim for a back injury (injury) and a secondary psychiatric injury arising out of her employment with the InvoCare. Before the Appellant could proceed with her common law claim, she had to establish that she had an entitlement to compensation under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld).

The Appellant alleged that her injury arose out of her work over the period 2011 to 2012.

The duties the Appellant claimed contributed to her injury included:

  • moving chairs
  • carrying Neverfail water bottles
  • vehicle maintenance
  • coffin deliveries
  • transfer of deceased persons
  • transfer of caskets/coffins and pallbearing at funerals
  • burials

The Appellant’s claim was rejected by the Workers’ Compensation Regulator (Regulator). She appealed the Regulator’s decision to the Commission.

The Issue

The issue for determination by the Commission in the Appeal was whether the Appellant’s injury arose in the course of her employment.

The Experts

The Appellant relied upon the evidence of Dr Gillett, Orthopaedic Surgeon, in support of her claim. Dr Gillett provided a report to the effect that work practices over a period of time in relation to manual lifting, particularly the lifting of coffins, would have placed stress and strain on the lower back and on the Appellant’s fusion. Dr Gillett said that even without the work of a funeral director, the Appellant would have had some increasing degeneration to her lumbar spine. However, he estimated her duties caused an acceleration in her degeneration of 5 years more than what would have occurred.

The Regulator relied upon the evidence of Associate Professor Peter Steadman, Orthopaedic Surgeon. Associate Professor Steadman was of the opinion that the Appellant was suffering from Adjacent Segment Disease (ASD) an almost inevitable consequence of her previous spinal fusion. Importantly, he was ‘unable to ascertain any specific work related event or contribution over a period of time that would indicate employment was the cause of her complaint in terms of the deterioration’. Although he accepted that if the Appellant was undertaking regular heavy lifting of the type described, this would have exacerbated her condition, as Dr Gillett opined.

Both experts agreed that ASD can be a consequence of a spinal fusion.

The Judgment

In a judgment delivered on 30 October 2015, Industrial Commissioner Fisher refused the appeal, finding:

  1. At times the Appellant was required to undertake lifting outside of safe manual handling limits, in lifting oversized coffins. However, the weight of loads borne by her was not satisfactorily established.
  2. The Appellant was symptom free until 2010. The development of her symptoms was not associated with any particular incident or work task.
  3. The onset of the Appellant’s symptoms was more consistent with the evidence of Dr Steadman.
  4. The Commission was unable to accept on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant’s employment was a significant contributing factor to her injury.

Considerations

This case will be helpful for employers and claim managers who are defending manual handling cases. For those with similar claims, what’s most interesting about this case is that the Appellant was unsuccessful despite:

  • the Commission accepting that she had undertaken lifting outside of safe manual handling limits.
  • the employer giving the Appellant manual tasks with knowledge of her pre-employment spinal fusion.

Manual handling cases can be the most difficult types of workers’ compensation claims to defend. However, this decision highlights that workers may fail where they are unable to identify the precise work duties alleged to have caused their injury.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injuries matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
November 9, 2015 Kate Denning , ,
Kate DenningNo compensation for degenerative disc disease
Read more

Photographs of woman at work led to compensable injury

Photographs of woman at work led to compensable injury

Photographs of woman at work led to compensable injury

by Kate Denning Google+

Reasonable Management Action Qld – Reasonable Management Action Taken in a Reasonable Way – Workers Compensation Lawyers for Employers – Suing an Employer for Sexual Assault – Sexual Assault by Boss

Case note: Waugh v Simon Blackwood (Workers’ Compensation Regulator) & State of Queensland [2015] ICQ 028

The Facts

Ms Astrid Waugh (Appellant) brought a claim for workers’ compensation for psychiatric injuries arising in the course of her employment with the State Library of Queensland (SLQ).

The Appellant’s co-worker, Mr Bruce McGregor (McGregor), took covert photographs of the Appellant and a number of other people, using SLQ electronic devices.  The equipment was confiscated from McGregor and 2,500 images were found on the confiscated devices. A number of the images focused on the chest area of female employees of the SLQ.

The Appellant only became aware of the photographs in March 2013, after hearing rumours about McGregor’s actions. The Appellant approached a work colleague, who followed up with management about her concerns. The Appellant asked to see the images after a meeting with management on 2 May 2013. The Appellant said she was told that the images would be provided. A week later, the Appellant says that she was told, ‘Oh Astrid, your head is not even in most of them’.

The images were posted to the Appellant on 17 May 2013. This was after the SLQ undertook a consultation process, which included obtaining legal advice. The Appellant complained that management had ‘brushed her off’.

The Proceedings

The Appellant suffered a psychiatric injury. She made successful application to WorkCover Queensland for workers’ compensation benefits. The SLQ appealed the decision to accept the claim. The Workers’ Compensation Regulator upheld the SLQ’s appeal. The Appellant appealed to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission). The Commission refused her appeal.

The Appellant appealed to the Industrial Court of Queensland (Court).

Her appeal challenged these findings of the Commission:

  1. That the injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, the Appellant’s employment as ‘the workplace was merely the background or setting in which the inappropriate behaviour took place’.
  2. The significant contributing factor to the injury was the taking of the photographs and not the Appellant’s employment.
  3. The manner in which the SLQ dealt with the issue was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.

The Judgment

In a judgment delivered on 8 October 2015, President Justice Martin allowed the appeal, finding:

  1. There was a delay in advising the Appellant of the existence of the photographs. That delay had some effect upon the Appellant.
  2. The fact that the photographs were taken in the workplace was integral to the development of the psychiatric injury. This was supported by unchallenged psychiatric evidence. This was a case in which the employment was more than just the setting in which the inappropriate behaviour took place. The effect of the behaviour and the intensity of the impact it had was magnified by the fact that it occurred in the workplace.
  3. The actions of the SLQ fell short of ‘reasonable management action’.

Considerations

The Court acknowledged that the circumstances of this case would test the best intentioned employer. However, it also highlighted some shortcomings of the SLQ, which the Court found were not dealt with by the Commission, including:

  1. The delay in advising the Appellant of the photographs and the nature of the photographs.
  2. The fact that the SLQ did not say anything to the Appellant until she approached another employee about the matter.
  3. The lack of any disciplinary action or sanction on McGregor.
  4. Allowing McGregor to resign.
  5. The tone of correspondence advising staff of McGregor’s resignation, which could be reasonably seen to be, if not supporting McGregor, a benign acceptance of his conduct.
  6. Failing to report the incident to a relevant authority.

It’s easy to imagine similar criticisms being made of an employer in say, a bullying case. This case will be of interest to those working in management, employment law or human resources. It highlights the fragility of these situations and the need for businesses to be aware of what could fall short of ‘reasonable management action’ in a workers’ compensation claim.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a workers’ compensation matter, by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
October 8, 2015 Kate Denning , ,
Kate DenningPhotographs of woman at work led to compensable injury
Read more

Parties review claims as Qld changes workers’ compensation laws

Parties review claims as Qld changes workers’ compensation laws

Parties review claims as Qld changes workers’ compensation laws

by Kate Denning Google+

New Qld WorkCover Laws – Changes to Workers Compensation Qld – Workers Compensation Lawyers Qld – Workers Compensation Lawyers for Employers

On 24 September 2015, the Workers’ Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 (Qld) (Bill) received assent.

The changes

The Bill amended the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (Act).  The Act (as amended) provides that:

  1. Workers injured during the period 15 October 2013 to 30 January 2015 and assessed with a Degree of Permanent Impairment (DPI) of 5% (threshold) or less, will be paid ‘additional lump sum compensation’ to compensate them for the fact that they cannot claim common law damages against their employer.
  2. From 31 January 2015 onwards, workers with an accepted claim for compensation under the Act will be able to seek common law damages against their employer, without the need to exceed the threshold.

For respondents

The amendments will be welcomed by respondents to some claims regulated by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA) and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA). It was a consequence of changes to workers’ compensation laws passed in 2013, that respondents to claims could not seek contribution from employers on a joint tortfeasor basis where workers suffered an injury with a DPI of 5% or less: Bonser v Melcanais [2000] QCA 13.

This resulted in general insurers, respondents to PIPA claims and compulsory third party insurers, having to pay 100% of the damages payable to workers in what were otherwise, master/servant claims. This anomaly caused particular problems for organisations with complex company structures. For claims arising out of incidents on or after 31 January 2015, these respondents will now be able to join an employer as a party to a claim in accordance with the Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) and the regulating legislation.

Contractual indemnities

The changes do not address the Supreme Court decision of Byrne v People Resourcing (Qld) Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] QSC 269. A respondent with a contractual indemnity in its favour (from an employer) can seek to enforce that indemnity against an employer, WorkCover or a self-insurer.

How to respond

We recommend that insurers and PIPA respondents conduct a review of their current Queensland claims to consider potential claims for contribution or indemnity in contract or tort.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a workers’ compensation matter, by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
September 29, 2015 Kate Denning , , ,
Kate DenningParties review claims as Qld changes workers’ compensation laws
Read more

Tip truck tray injury not caused by host employer negligence

Tip truck tray injury not caused by host employer negligence

Tip truck tray injury not caused by host employer negligence

Thomas v Trades & Labour Hire Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] QSC 264

Employee Fails to Follow Instructions – Negligent Worker – Tip Truck Accident – Tailgate Accident – Workers Compensation Lawyers for Employers – Workers Compensation Lawyers Qld – Truck Injury Lawyer Blog – Truck Injury Compensation – Truck Injury Law Firm – Truck Injury Lawyers – Tailgate Truck Accident – Liability Claims Example

Facts

Mr Grant Thomas (Worker) was employed by Trades & Labour Hire Pty Ltd to work at the Gold Coast City Council (Host Employer) as a driver and operator of a tip truck (truck).  The Worker was an experienced driver and had worked around trucks for most of his working life.

The Worker took a load of broken pieces of concrete curbing in the Host Employer’s truck to the Suntown Tip at Arundel. The truck was fitted with a tipper tray, which could be raised and lowered hydraulically. The Worker decided to discharge the load under the tailgate, with it swinging on its horizontal axis.  The Worker chose this method, believing that the pieces of concrete were small enough to go under the tailgate. A sample of concrete pieces taken from the load after the incident contained pieces around 600mm wide.

He released two clasps securing the bottom of the tailgate tray from inside the truck cabin. As he was discharging the load, the Worker noticed something wrong with the tailgate. He said it looked as though one corner of the tailgate was hitting the ground. He went to inspect the issue.

The Worker pushed on the tailgate and it fell to the ground, falling on him and causing serious injury to his left foot.

Issue

The matters in issue at trial were whether:

  • the Worker had pushed the tailgate immediately prior to it falling to the ground or whether it had ‘popped off’.
  • the Host Employer had an adequate system of maintenance in place for the truck.
  • the Host Employer provided adequate training and instructions to the Worker.

Judgment

The Worker had given prior inconsistent statements about the sequence of events leading up to the tailgate falling off. He told a co-worker after the event that he had pushed on the tailgate. He also said that he pushed on the tailgate in his Notices of Claim.  However at trial, the Worker said that he was just thinking about pushing on the tailgate and didn’t actually push on it.

The Host Employer had given a written instruction to workers to ‘immediately report’ any problems with vehicles.

Expert evidence was led about whether the hinge pin, which was holding the tailgate on, was wearing prior to the incident and whether that wear should have been detected. The Court found that the crack to the hinge pin was probably caused during manufacture and present for up to six (6) months prior to the incident.

Despite this, the Court did not consider that it was reasonable for inspection of the pin to form part of any inspection or maintenance process.

The Court found that the cause of the cause of the hinge pin breaking and the tailgate falling off, was the Worker pushing on the tailgate. This was despite the evidence of the Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s engineers, that the tailgate could have fallen off without any interference by the Worker.

The Court gave judgment for the Defendants.

Considerations

This case will be of assistance to those managing claims involving workers with many years of industry experience, who disobey a written instruction by an employer. Particular emphasis was placed upon the instruction given to the Worker in the judgment. It may also be of interest to those compulsory third party insurers whose policies extend beyond driving, to the ‘use of’ a vehicle.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter, by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
September 20, 2015 Kate Denning , ,
Kate DenningTip truck tray injury not caused by host employer negligence
Read more

Responding to a request for a Compulsory Conference

Responding to a request for a Compulsory Conference

Responding to a request for a Compulsory Conference

by Kate Denning Google+

Compulsory Conference PIPA – Compulsory Conference Queensland – Compulsory Conference WorkCover Qld – Compulsory Conference Personal Injury

In claims regulated by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA), Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA) and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (MAIA) any party may ‘call’ a Compulsory Conference (conference).

So, you’ve been involved in a matter for some time now and another party calls a conference. What do you do?

Here’s our list of suggested ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’:

The Don’ts

Ignore the request

If a request for a conference is made, a response should be given within a reasonable timeframe. What’s ‘reasonable’ will vary for each matter, the number of parties involved and the time of year. For instance, if it’s October and parties are trying to arrange a mediated conference in a multi-party dispute for December, it would be helpful for all the parties to provide their availability within a day or two, to lock down a date.

Whenever a request for a conference is made, we should consider it possible that all communications exchanged between the parties thereafter could end up annexed to an affidavit in a Court application. If there’s a gaping whole in a chronology showing no response to a request from one party – that party should expect embarrassment at the hearing of the application.

Immediately agree to the request

Unless you have instructions from your client, intimate knowledge of the matter and you are confident that all outstanding steps, information and documents will be taken or gathered before a conference – do not just jump in and commit to a conference. Don’t agree to a conference just because there’s pressure from another party to provide an immediate response. This can be a trap that early career lawyers fall into and this kind of reactive advocacy could impact upon the outcome of the matter and the relationship with a client.

Cause unreasonable delay

If there are outstanding steps or investigations that should have been completed and they haven’t – don’t refuse to agree to a conference because that work hasn’t been done. A common object of each of the pre-court regimes is the early resolution of personal injury claims. Of course, we are all human (especially lawyers) and at times, some matters demand our attention over others.

A better approach could be to explain to the other party that you will need certain information or material in order to actively participate in a conference, sign a Certificate of Readiness or make a meaningful Mandatory Final Offer (MFO). Otherwise, consider suggesting a tentative date for a conference, proposing the matter proceed by way of informal conference or that a date for conference be scheduled within a defined timeframe.

The Do’s

Review the matter

The exchange of MFOs, Certificates of Readiness and the cost consequences that flow from MFOs, make holding a conference a step with serious consequences for clients and lawyers.

A Certificate of Readiness under the PIPA and WCRA, certifies that the lawyer (or the party) considers the party to be, in all respects, ready for the conference. In claims regulated by the MAIA – the legislation is more onerous – with the lawyer required to certify that ‘the party is in all respects ready for trial‘.

Some of the things to consider when reviewing a matter are whether:

  • all outstanding steps have been undertaken under the legislation.
  • all factual investigations and instructions from the client have been obtained.
  • adequate responses have been received from the Claimant, other parties or non-parties to all requests for information and documentation.
  • all necessary expert evidence has been provided.
  • the parties have undertaken disclosure.
  • all parties with a liability in contract, tort or under a policy of insurance have been joined to the claim.

Consider mediation

For multi-party disputes, it may be appropriate for a conference to proceed by way of mediation. A conference can proceed by way of mediation, ‘if .. the parties agree’. Parties are sometimes reluctant to suggest mediation. Perhaps this is because they’re concerned the other party/ies may think they really want the matter resolved or perhaps they’re concerned it could be seen as a concession of liability or risk exposure.

There can also be disputes about the contributions towards a mediator’s fee. Often a party who considers itself with no exposure will resist agreeing to meet their share of the cost of a mediator. This position might be justified, for instance, where one party is owed a contractual indemnity by another. However, these disputes can end up costing clients more in solicitor’s fees than the actual share of the mediator’s fee, so it’s best to stick to the real issues in dispute. Instead, make your attitude towards the claim known through Contribution Notices, liability responses or requests for particulars.

Of course, it’s not always appropriate to mediate. If the parties know that a matter is unlikely to settle at conference, it may be a cost that they’d prefer to avoid and reserve mediation for the litigated stage. Conversely, if the parties think a matter can be resolved because the parties are on the same page, then mediation may not be necessary.

Informal conferences

Informal conferencing can be useful where a party is not ready to participate in a conference under the legislation. The parties can agree to participate in an informal conference and agree to dispose with the requirement for a conference under the legislation to be held if the matter does not settle.

With this approach, parties don’t have the pressure of MFOs and Certificates of Readiness weighing upon the negotiations. Also, if the matter fails to resolve, they needn’t incur the legal costs of a conference at a later date.

Set a tentative date

In a multi-party dispute it’s a good idea for the parties to tentatively schedule a conference early in the matter to give the everyone a date to work towards. This is practical in multi-party disputes where claims may be regulated by two or more pieces of legislation. Also, with a date scheduled months in advance, it makes it difficult for one party to wriggle out with excuses. Medical examinations, factual investigations, requests to parties and requests to non-parties can all be worked into an agreed timetable.

Comments

The object of a conference is for a claim to be settled at an early stage, without the need for litigation. There’s no point in agreeing to a conference if the parties won’t be ready but one party should not cause unreasonable delay for the others.

For advice on insurance law matters, please contact us. Keep up to date with the latest news and developments in insurance law, by subscribing to our blog, InDefence.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

July 16, 2015 Kate Denning , , ,
Kate DenningResponding to a request for a Compulsory Conference
Read more

‘Actively Participating’ in a Compulsory Conference

‘Actively Participating’ in a Compulsory Conference

‘Actively Participating’ in a Compulsory Conference

Compulsory Conference PIPA – Compulsory Conference Queensland – Compulsory Conference WorkCover Qld – Compulsory Conference Personal Injury

Parties to a Queensland personal injury claim are required to attend a Compulsory Conference (conference) and ‘actively participate’ in an attempt to resolve the claim, before proceedings can be started in a Court.

An exception is made for a party, that has a ‘reasonable excuse’ not to do so.

A variety of methods are used by parties and their lawyers to try to get the most out of a conference and it’s interesting to see how the meaning of ‘active participation’ is interpreted in practice.

Some of the methods that we see arise are:

1. Passive

In a multi-party dispute, it’s usually easy to identify the party who’s taking a passive role before the matter gets to a conference. The party may be non-communicative or just generally indifferent about the progress of the matter.

The idea that a party could be passive at conference is at odds with the requirement under the legislation for parties to ‘actively participate’. However, in certain circumstances, it’s appropriate for a party to adopt that position – they may have a ‘reasonable excuse’. For example, where a Respondent or Contributor has a reasonable suspicion of fraud.

For the remaining parties, it’s important that the passive party is identified prior to the conference and advice is provided to respective clients about the likely attitude of that party in negotiations.

If other parties see a significant exposure for the party taking a passive role, it could be useful to have some pre-conference discussions about liability, contribution or any other relevant issues. If you don’t, you might be surprised to find that a conference is a waste of time and money.

2. Aggressive

The Australian Solicitors Conduct Rules require solicitors to be, ‘courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice’. So its unfortunate when aggression (as opposed to robust debate) is seen at conferences. Perhaps it’s an attempt to rattle the other person or, perhaps it’s because the aggressor isn’t familiar enough with the matter.

For those on the receiving end, it can feel like a personal attack and there’s simply no valid reason for this kind of conduct. It does nothing to facilitate the negotiation process. Complaints to regulating bodies may be a consideration depending on the circumstances.

3. Measured

Most conferences proceed with numerous offers exchanged, with those offers moving gradually towards an acceptable position. The advantage of this ‘death by a thousand cuts’ method of negotiation is that the client may feel as though they have remained in control throughout the negotiation process and have gotten the ‘best deal’, where a settlement is achieved. Of course, it’s possible that this approach may frustrate some opponents or their representatives, who are seasoned negotiators and believe that it’s best to just move the negotiations along more quickly.

4. Conservative

When information remains outstanding at a conference, one or more parties may decide it’s best to, ‘keep their powder dry’ and to make few concessions in the negotiations. When MFOs are ultimately exchanged, they may be far apart, with parties hoping to achieve a better outcome through a litigated mediation.

This approach might be appropriate in a case where, for example, neither party has obtained expert medical evidence about a subsequent injury. In such a scenario, the parties know that more evidence will need to be gathered prior to a trial but do not know if that evidence will help or hurt their case.

This approach is less likely to arise in a claim that is regulated only by the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), where orders about costs flow only from MFOs. In workers’ compensation claims, the parties are under pressure to make their ‘best offer’ at conference.

Where claims are regulated by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), parties may feel that they can hold out for a better offer at a litigated mediation.

5. Surprise!

If you have ever been at a conference where surveillance has been revealed, you’ll understand this technique perfectly. Of course, documents and information that are required to be disclosed, should be provided on an ongoing basis in accordance with the legislation. Some innocent examples of late disclosure that arise may include providing file notes from telephone attendances with medical experts or witnesses just prior to, or, at conference (where late investigations cannot be avoided). If late disclosure obstructs the negotiations, then it may be appropriate for the party at a disadvantage to propose that the conference be adjourned and re-convened at a later date. Intentional deception of an opponent by a lawyer can amount to professional misconduct. 

6. Efficient

‘Can we cut to the chase?’

‘Can we split the difference’?

If you’re in a conference where opposing parties or their representatives are on the same page, then it’s likely that someone will try and move the negotiations along with questions like these. The difficulty with agreeing to this type of request, is that you won’t necessarily know if you could have achieved a better outcome by continuing to negotiate, by the exchange of more offers.

An efficient negotiator might also call for MFOs early in the negotiations. This may be done in response to slow movement in offers by the other party, to force the other party to make a significant concession. Where a claim is capable of resolution at conference, this technique may totally obstruct negotiations and actually backfire on the person calling for MFOs. It should not be done to bluff the opponent/s and of course, only upon instructions from the client.

Comments

‘Active participation’ can mean many very different things at a conference. It’s a good idea to tailor your approach for conference to your matter, your client, your opponent/s and for the advantages to be gained under the legislation regulating the claim.

To keep up to date with the latest news and developments in insurance and personal injury law, subscribe to our blog InDefence.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

 

July 2, 2015 Kate Denning , , ,
Kate Denning‘Actively Participating’ in a Compulsory Conference
Read more

Making a Mandatory Final Offer in Queensland

Making a Mandatory Final Offer in Queensland

Making a Mandatory Final Offer in Queensland

Compulsory Conference PIPA – Compulsory Conference Queensland – Compulsory Conference WorkCover Qld – Compulsory Conference Personal Injury

by Kate Denning Google+

Introduction

In Queensland, parties to a personal injury claim are required to make a ‘mandatory final offer‘ or ‘written final offer‘ (MFO). An MFO is made at the end of an unsuccessful pre-court Compulsory Conference in claims regulated by the:

Here are just some of the irregularities that can arise with MFOs in Queensland claims:

No Mandatory Final Offer

Cost consequences flow from an MFO. Any cost orders ultimately made will depend on: the amount of the offers compared with any judgment; the legislation regulating the claim; offers made during the litigation (except in WCRA claims); and, in limited circumstances, case building that occurs once the matter is litigated. To avoid the potential for adverse cost consequences, a party may agree to participate in settlement negotiations on an informal basis only, so that they are not required to exchange MFOs (or provide a Certificate of Readiness). In multi-party disputes, this strategy may be appropriate for a PIPA Respondent that has been joined to a claim late in the piece. Otherwise, a refusal by one party to have a level playing field with the others for no valid reason, is likely to impact settlement negotiations.

Offers inclusive of costs

Under the PIPA and MAIA, where an offer is at or below the ‘upper offer limit‘, parties are required to make offers which are exclusive of costs. Otherwise, parties are permitted to make MFOs which are inclusive of costs.  These types of MFOs should be made with caution.  Offers which are inclusive of costs have received unfavourable treatment by the courts. The difficulty with these types of offers, is that there’s no way for a court to identify from the MFO the amounts allowed for damages and costs.

Offers fixing an amount for costs

A Respondent may make an offer which fixes an amount for costs. The advantage of doing so is that, if accepted, the Claimant has agreed to an amount for costs and no further negotiations are necessary. However, where an offer fixes costs and that offer is rejected – a question might arise later on about whether the Claimant was justified in rejecting it because the allowance for costs was too low. As with offers which are inclusive of costs, these types of offers should be made with caution.

Offers between Contributor and Respondent

Under the PIPA, parties to a contribution claim are not required to exchange MFOs. However, under the WCRA, both Contributors and Respondents are required to make MFOs. The result of this is that for claims regulated by both the WCRA and PIPA, PIPA Contributors may choose to make no offer towards settlement during pre-court negotiations, as a matter of strategy. It may be in the interests of a PIPA Contributor to take a passive role in the claim and see if the other parties will reach a compromise without any offer from them towards a settlement. However, in a claim where a PIPA Contributor has significant exposure, this approach may simply compel the parties to litigate.

Joint MFOs

For claims regulated by the WCRA, costs only flow from the MFO. So, where a claim is regulated by the WCRA and PIPA, the Respondent and Contributor/s in the WCRA claim will be reluctant to make an MFO of $nil. The result is that at Compulsory Conferences there is more pressure on the WCRA parties, than the PIPA parties, to make an appealing MFO to a Claimant. Conversely, if a WCRA party has made reasonable attempts to resolve a matter during the pre-court stage, then they may be reluctant to co-operate with a PIPA party that is keen to negotiate well into the litigation.

Attaching a Release and Cost clauses

Care should be taken when drafting the MFO. If the MFO refers to a Release and a copy of that Release is not attached to the MFO, that may affect the validity of the offer. For claims under the PIPA and MAIA, where a Release is attached and there is otherwise no obligation upon a Claimant to sign a Release, a question may arise about whether the terms of the Release affected the acceptability of the Respondent’s offer. Consideration should also be given to the wording of any clause about costs in the MFO. Particularly if the MFO refers to costs being payable in anyway other than ‘in accordance with the’ relevant legislation regulating the claim.

Clash of the MFOs

MFOs are ‘exchanged’ and so parties do not usually know what offer/s will be made by their opponent/s. In rare circumstances, two parties may make MFOs to each other which are less favourable than the offers put to them.  For instance, Company X offers to settle a Claimant’s claim for $100,000 but the Claimant offers to settle her claim for just $80,000. Parties may attempt to address this by adding a clause to the MFO to the effect that the document serves as an acceptance of any offer that is less/more than the offer made by their opponent.

Expiring limitation period

A Claimant must commence proceedings within 60 days of a Compulsory Conference and cannot start those proceedings while the MFOs are open. MFOs must stay open for 14 days (10 business days for WCRA claims). There is no discretion under the legislation for that time to be abridged. So, for claims regulated by the PIPA and MAIA, a Compulsory Conference must be held no later than 10 business days prior to the expiration of a limitation period, to allow the MFOs to expire and the Claimant to commence proceedings.

Getting it right

There’s no set formula for getting your MFO ‘right’. However, each piece of legislation has its own nuances. It’s important to be familiar with the legislation that regulates both your claim AND your opponent’s. Adequate preparation before a Compulsory Conference will facilitate negotiations and prevent confusion between parties and their legal representatives when MFOs are exchanged.

For the latest news in insurance and personal injuries law, subscribe to our blog, InDefence.

BOOK A FREE CONSULTATION for advice and information about a personal injury matter by calling (07) 3067 3025 or contact us online.

Contact us

Contact Form

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
June 18, 2015 Kate Denning , ,
Kate DenningMaking a Mandatory Final Offer in Queensland
Read more

InDefence covers legal and technical issues in a general way. Changes in circumstances or the law may affect the completeness or accuracy of the information published. InDefence is not designed to express opinions on specific cases, to provide legal advice or to establish a relationship of client and lawyer between Denning Insurance Law and the reader, or any third party. No person should act or refrain from acting solely on the basis of this publication. You should seek legal advice particular to your circumstances before taking action on any issue dealt with in this blog.