Croft v Brisbane Guttering and Roofing Services P/L & Anor [2013] QDC 159

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Croft v Brisbane Guttering and Roofing Services Proprietary Limited & another [2013] QDC 159 PARTIES: YVETTE CROFT (Applicant) And BRISBANE GUTTERING AND ROOFING SERVICES PROPRIETARY LIMITED & ANOTHER (Respondent) FILE NO/S: 1989/2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: District Court DELIVERED ON: 21 June 2013 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 21 June 2013 JUDGE: Samios DCJ ORDER: 1. Order as per draft. CATCHWORDS: PERSONAL INJURIES - duty of respondents to give a copy of all documents in their possession pursuant to section 27 (1) (a) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) LEGISLATION Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) s 9, 13, 27 (1) (a) COUNSEL: Mr Williams for the applicant The respondent was self-represented SOLICITORS: Shine Lawyers for the applicant. The respondent was self-represented. -- 1 of 3 -- [1] The application before me today seeks orders that the respondents give to the applicants a copy of all documents in their possession which fall within the scope of section 27 subsection (1) paragraph (a) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. That section provides a duty upon the respondents to give documents and information to a claimant. The circumstances behind the application are that the applicant is the daughter of Mr Mackay who died. Mr Mackay was employed by the first respondent to perform roofing and guttering work. It is alleged that the deceased person’s work for the first respondent was managed and supervised by the second respondent. [2] Mr Mackay died on or about the 14th of June 2011 when he was performing roofing and/or guttering work of a residential home situated here in Brisbane. He fell from the roof about five metres and suffered sever injuries and subsequently died. The applicant was subsequently informed of their father’s death and as a result of learning of his death and the circumstances in which he died, she suffered a nervous shock and resultant psychological injury. The allegation that is made by the applicant is that her father’s accident and death and her subsequent psychological injury were caused by the negligence of the first respondent and/or the second respondent. The applicant’s solicitors have pursued a claim on her behalf and a part 1 notice of claim pursuant to section 9 of the Act was served on each of the respondents on or about the 10th of September 2012. [3] There was no response to the notice of claim. Accordingly, it is submitted that by operation of section 13 of the Act, the notice of claim was conclusively deemed to be a complying notice of claim. Requests have been made to the -- 2 of 3 -- respondents that a copy of the relevant documents be provided to the applicant. They have not been provided to date. It seems to me on the evidence before me that the orders that are sought should be made. Nothing has been put before me by the respondents who appear today represented by the second respondent, Mr Suess, that would lead me not to make the orders sought. Therefore there will be an order as per the draft initialled by me and left with the papers. The draft provides 14 days within which the respondents are to give to the applicant the relevant documents. -- 3 of 3 --