MIM v Peachey

[1998] QCA 400

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Amendment of notice of appeal
4. › New ground raised for first time on appeal
5. › Whether leave should be granted
6. › Whether evidence could have been adduced below to resist the point
7. › Coulton v Holcombe principle
1. Industrial Law (Qld)
2. › Workplace health and safety
3. › Employer's duty to ensure health and safety of employees
4. › Whether duty under s 9(1) imposes absolute liability or requires reasonable foreseeability
5. › Onus of establishing lack of practicability
6. › Whether employer must plead lack of practicability
7. › Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld), s 9(1)
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Continuing breach of statutory duty
3. › Cause of action arising within limitation period
4. › Aggravation of pre-existing condition within limitation period
5. › Damages limited to further damage from wrongs within limitation period
6. › Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11
1. Damages
2. › Personal injuries
3. › Assessment of damages
4. › Appellate review of quantum
5. › Whether wholly erroneous estimate of damage
6. › Whether error in one component would make substantial alteration to total award
7. › Acceleration of pre-existing condition

Quick Take

Section 9(1) of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1989 (Qld) does not impose any test of reasonable foreseeability; a plaintiff succeeds by proving the employer failed to make certain the plaintiff's health and safety at work, unless the employer pleads and proves lack of practicability. The practicability qualification must be affirmatively pleaded by the defendant. Where a statutory duty is continuing, a claim is not statute-barred merely because symptoms first arose outside the limitation period, provided the breach continued within the period, but damages are limited to the further damage resulting from wrongs committed within the limitation period.