Case studies

Judge to decide what is matter of fact

Timothy James Klein v SBD Services Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 134, 30 May 2013. This case demonstrates the importance of record keeping and accurate reporting of injuries. If documentation is lacking, it will ultimately fall to the Judge to decide on a matter of fact.

Bullying allegations unproven against employer

Judge Barlow found that there were two occasions where a Plaintiff might be said to have been bullied by other staff but that the Plaintiff ultimately failed in her claim against the Defendants.

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.

The home: another place of employment where workplace injuries can occur

Working from home creates an additional place of employment in which the employer must take steps to do what is reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of their workers.

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.

Zero Harm at Work case study_Energex Sun Safety

This case study is on skin cancer prevention in an outdoor workplace.

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.