Case studies

Importance of proactively progressing claim

The plaintiff was injured on 23 May 2011 while undertaking a task during the course of his employment. The plaintiff issued court proceedings in February 2013. Liability was not in dispute but the nature of the injuries sustained and the amount of damages claimed was in dispute.

Worker's fall did not cause consequential symptoms

Beardmore v Crown Equipment Pty Ltd [2012] QDC, 3 October 2012. This is a case where the court found there was a fall at work, there was negligence but the fall did not cause consequential symptoms.

Alleged injury from exposure to common cleaning agent

The Plaintiff was a 57-year-old part-time aged care worker. She alleges she suffered a chemical sensitivity injury and a consequent psychiatric injury as a result of exposure to a sanitising chemical “D4” in the course of her employment.

Psychological injuries in the workplace

Lusk & Anor v Sapwell, 1 April 2011. Employers only have to address risks in the workplace that are reasonably likely, while a worker must prove that the employer's breach of duty of care caused their injury.

Mandatory participation results in damages paid

Bagiante v Bunnings Group Limited. [2012] QSC, 31 May 2012. Employers should take care when arranging team events and participation in these activities should be on a voluntary basis.

Employer found not negligent in security

Karanfilov v MSS Security & Ors [2013] QSC 304. Injured worker suffered post-traumatic stress disorder when he was working as a security guard.

Surveillance and other related issues of credibility

Barker v Casco Australia Pty Ltd, 07 October 2011. This case study clearly demonstrates the importance of achieving a return to work outcome and that surveillance and other related issues of credibility are subject to the opinion formed by a Court and can be critical in determining the outcome of a quantum only trial.

Accident not caused by failures

Wolters v The University of the Sunshine Coast [2012] QSC 298, 5 October 2012. This is another case where the legal term of causation has been examined. The court found the employer breached its duty at common law and in contract by failing to adequately manage the behaviour of the supervisor following the event with the previous worker. However, the court held that the breach did not cause the claimant's loss, as it could not find that any action by the employer would have prevented the supervisor's actions on the day.

Worker unsuccessfully appeals court's initial finding that she was not bullied at work

Robertson v State of Queensland, 7 May 2021. The Court of Appeal has dismissed a worker's appeal against the District Court of Queensland's judgement that she was not bullied during her time as a nurse.

Employers need to consider the health and safety of those at work outside of normal hours

In the recent judgement of Walker v Greenmountain Food Processing Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 329, the Supreme Court of Queensland found an employer liable for the loss and damage suffered by a worker who sustained serious injuries after falling through a roof at dusk while investigating an issue with a boiler.

No reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous

Pols v AME Products [2013] QDC 190 19 August 2013. There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.There was no reason to anticipate misconduct might be dangerous to other employees.

Not foreseeable for racial joking to cause psychiatric condition

Guorgi v Pipemakers Australia [2013] QSC 198 9 August 2013. It wasn’t reasonably foreseeable that the worker would suffer a psychiatric condition as a result of racial jokes.