The Workcover Queensland Act: exploring injured workers payout options : Part 1

The article provides an overview of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 (Access to damages), and of the matters which, consequent on these provisions, practitioners must evaluate when advising an injured worker contemplating the commencement of a common law action for damages.

The Workcover Queensland Act 1996 : new procedures for common law claims [Part 2]

This article explains the new pre-court procedures and additional procedures designed to foster settlement of claims introduced by the Workcover Queensland Act 1996, and the implication of the new provisions for practitioners.

Summary judgment for plaintiff

The decision in Burke v Van Eeuwen (unreported, District Court of Queensland, No 1490/2002) reminds practitioners of the importance of an appearance for a party at any hearing of an application, even when a party's representatives may consider an opposing party is clearly not entitled to the order it seeks.

Limitation of Actions - effect of admission of liability

The decision in Simpson v Lenton [2002] QDC 214 applied the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Lindsay v Smith [2002] 1 Qd R 610 and Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 QDR 495 in finding the second defendant, having admitted liability, was estopped from relying on the expiration of the limitation period.

Limitation of actions - Workcover Queensland Act 1996 s 308(2)

In Narayan v S-Pak Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 373 the court concluded that proceedings to which the Workcover (Queensland) Act 1996 applies must be commenced within 60 days after the compulsory conference required by s308(2) of the Act and there is no power in the court to extend the time for compliance.

Personal injuries sustained in the course of employment - claim against employer under Workcover Queensland Act 1996

In Devlin v South Mole Island Resort [2003] QSC 020 the Court concluded the applicant was entitled to pursue a concurrent claim he alleged he had against the respondent under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in respect of injuries sustained in the course of employment, and also that the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 did not abolish the applicant's right to proceed against the respondent.

Practice and Procedure - Proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries commenced before June 18, 2002

In Inglis v Connell [2003] QDC 029 the court considered s6(3) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in relation to the application of the Act. The conclusion reached was that the provision should be interpreted as providing that the requirements of the Act do not apply in respect of personal injury the subject of any proceeding commenced before June 18, 2002.

Limitation of Actions - incorrect date of accident advised to solicitor

The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Cormie v Orchard [2003] QCA 236 involved consideration of whether the respondent solicitor was liable in negligence for failing to commence proceedings within the applicable limitation period in circumstances where the solicitor had relied on the advice as to the date of injury nominated incorrectly but unequivocally by the client.

Party to litigation insolvent company - costs order against non-party liquidator

In Kimtran Pty Ltd v Downie [2003] QDC 043 the court allowed in part an appeal from the refusal by the Queensland Building Tribunal to order the respondent liquidators pay the appellants' costs of proceedings in the Tribunal. The decision involved an examination of authorities which have considered the circumstances in which it is in the interests of justice to make an order for costs against a non-party.

Workcover Queensland Act 1996 - award of damages for future care not precluded by s315

In Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd interpreted provisions of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 as it applied to an injury occurring before 1 July 2001, i.e. prior to amendments made by the Workcover Queensland Act 2001. The decision involved the construction, in particular, of sections 312 and 315 of the Act

Costs order against company in liquidation unlikely to be effective indemnity

In Kimtran v Downie [2003] QCA 424, the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of a District Court judge who had ordered costs against a non-party liquidator. It held that the court's decision in relation to the awarding of costs against a liquidator was not constrained by the decision of the of the Court of Appeal in Mahaffey v Belar Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 2 in the manner stated in the District Court.

Setting aside default judgment - whether applicant must file affidavit providing direct evidence of defence 'on the merits'

In Prus-Butwilowicz v Moxey [2002] QDC 166 the court examined the question whether an applicant for an order setting aside a default judgment was required to file an affidavit providing direct evidence of a defence 'on the merits' and whether the position had changed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Disclosure of documents and limitation of actions

This article considers the decisions in Stephan v NRMA Insurance Limited [2001]QDC 002 and Bertha v Dragut [2001] QDC 003

Legal professional privilege and disclosure under UCPR - recent cases

This article examines the decisions in Galway v Constable [2001] QSC 180 and Mazelow Pty Ltd v Herberton Shire Council [2001] QSC 250

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.