Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd
[2020] QSC 62 · Crow J
Sheryl Tickner was injured on 20 July 2016 when a machine (a hide puller) failed and she fell about two metres, suffering a serious closed head injury with brain damage, loss of smell, cognitive and balance problems, headaches, and a claimed neck injury. She brought a workers' compensation common-law damages claim against her employer, Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd, in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton. Her total damages were pleaded at $843,729.75, reducing to $657,885.21 after deducting the WorkCover refund.
Teys applied to move the case down to the District Court, arguing that the reduced figure fell within that court's $750,000 jurisdictional limit. Justice Crow agreed that the District Court had jurisdiction but refused to transfer the case. He pointed to the case's complexity, the serious brain injury, the plaintiff's long wait and hardship since 2016, and the substantially longer delay expected in the District Court at Rockhampton, particularly following COVID-19 disruption. The application was dismissed and costs were reserved. No damages were assessed in this ruling.
Teys' decision to pursue the transfer seems somewhat peculiar. It had to defend the same claim either way, and Crow J specifically noted that there were limited adverse costs consequences from the case remaining in the Supreme Court because s 318 WCRA required costs to be determined according to the District Court scale. The judgment does not identify any particular commercial or tactical advantage Teys expected to gain from moving the case, and (in our opinion) the application seems to have been a needless waste of time and money for all involved at the self-insured employer's behest.
Incident & injury
Machinery (hide puller) failure causing the plaintiff to fall approximately two metres
- Body regions
- Brain / head, Cervical spine, Neurological
- Diagnoses
- Closed head injury with traumatic brain damage, Anosmia, Cognitive impairment, Balance impairment, Persistent headaches, Cervical spine injury
- Incident date
- 20 July 2016
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 7 April 2020
- Claim type
- WCRA Common Law
- Proceeding
- Interlocutory
- Plaintiff outcome
- Successful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Not stated
Outcome
The defendant employer applied under s 25(2) of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 to transfer the proceeding to the District Court on the basis that the net claim ($657,885.21 after the s 270 WCRA WorkCover reduction) fell within that court's jurisdiction. Crow J held the District Court did have jurisdiction but declined to exercise the discretion to transfer, dismissing the application. Costs were reserved.
Defendant
1 Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd
Employer
Key issues
Tickner v Teys Australia Biloela Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 62
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.