Coletti v Steggles Ltd [2001] QSC 96

S_tate Reporting Bureau \ 0 \ /.~ LJ 1ova.J 41 tl I ~" Queensland Government ..\).)1 Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J Claim No 163 of 2000 ANITA TERESA COLETTI and STEGGLES LIMITED CAIRNS .. DATE 19/03/2001 JUDGMENT Applicant(Plaintiff) Respondent(Defendant) 1 4Th Floor The Law Courts Complex George Street Brisbane Q 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360. Facsimile· (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 4 -- 19032001 T3/MFK M/T CNSl/2001 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for leave' to further amend the amended statement of claim, the effect of which amendment is to more particularly specify the date upon which the injury, in respect of which the plaintiff seeks damages, occurred. Even though allowing that amendment which will allow a great deal more certainty to the conduct of the proceedings, there is a further allegation in paragraph 7 of the amended statement of claim which suggests that the plaintiff on 13 February 1997 further exacerbated the injury on which she primarily bases her claim. The consequence of ongoing exacerbations of the original injury means that the plaintiff's claim has to be looked at to determine whether she has complied with the dictates of three separate WorkCove~ Acts, commencing with the Act of 1990 and then the Act of 1996 and finally the Act of 1997. 20 This arises because the amended defence suggests that what the plaintiff described as an exacerbation was in fact a new injury. It is a factual matter which the parties ought to have the opportunity to litigate if they are so inclined. For my part, I should indicate I would expect there would be an opportunity for the plaintiff to be relieved on non-compliance with any of those requirements of the Act in the circumstance of this particular case, but such a determination must await the outcome of further argument and perhaps on a further application. 30 2 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 4 -- 19032001 T3/MFK M/T CNSl/2001 (Jones J) The application before me at the moment is of two parts. Firstly, by the plaintiff for leave to further amend the amended statement of claim and secondly, to strike out paragraphs 9(a) and 9(b) of the defendant's defence. In respect of the first part of the application, there is no opposition to the granting of that by the defendant. As I have indicated earlier, it is simply to plead with more particularity the date and when the alleged injury occurred 10 and when it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. There being no opposition to that amendment, and my noting that the amendment does not raise any questions under the statute of limitations, I will allow the amendments to be made in the terms of the application. With respect to the second part of the application, the striking out of those paragraphs of the defendant's defence, it seems to me that at this time it is premature to make that application. There are factual questions which need to be 20 determined and moreover the defendant ought to be given the opportunity to consider iEs position in the light of the amendments that I have ordered today. For that reason, I will not further consider that part of the application, but simply adjourn the hearing of it to a date to be fixed to be brought on on four days notice by either party to the other party. Costs? 3 JUDGMENT 30 -- 3 of 4 -- 19032001 T3/MFK M/T CNSl/2001 (Jones J) MR MOON: Would your Honour reserve the costs? It's by ·consent I understand. HIS HONOUR: Yes. By consent the costs of and incidental to this application will be reserved. 4 JUDGMENT 10 -- 4 of 4 --