Skip to content
1300 362 128
Menu
1300 362 128

Case studies

Filter by Industry
Industry
Filter by Audience
Audience
Filter by Author
Author
Filter by Hazard type
Hazard type
Filter by Topic
Topic
Selected filters

All case studies

Choose a sort order

  • Industry standard equipment not enough to satisfy duty of care

    Thompson v Cranetrans Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 250 23 September 2013. Where equipment is provided which accords with industry standard, that does not necessarily mean that the employer’s conduct has met a standard of reasonable care.

    1 July 2015

  • The onerous obligation on an employer to instruct and warn

    Weaver v Endeavour Foundation [2013] QSC 93, 12 April 2013. This judgment effectively imposes a standard akin to perfection on an employer and goes to the scope of an employer’s duty of care generally. The employer was found liable for doing its very best to train staff to minimise foreseeable risks of injury in the workplace.

    1 July 2015

  • Credibility of the worker was important in determining the extent of the injury

    Richard Craig Adam v Skilled Group Limited and Anor [2013] QSC 7, 8 February 2013. While credibility issues on their own are not always compelling, the combination of them can cause considerable concern.

    1 July 2015

  • DEPCO

    In 2011, mining and minerals exploration company, ‘Drill Engineering and Pastoral Co ‘(DEPCO), were invited to participate in IPaM and the results are paying off.

    1 July 2015

  • Gay Constructions Pty Ltd

    With IPaM, Gay Constructions reviewed its safety and injury management systems and surveyed employees about safety in the workplace. The company then worked with an IPaM advisor to develop an action plan that included a number of safety and injury management initiatives.

    1 July 2015

  • A question of credibility

    Hannah v Barellan Bobcat Hire Pty Ltd, 24 August 2011. Liability will be determined on the facts that are accepted by the Court, and the credibility of the parties is critical in making this determination.

    1 July 2015

  • Previous employment influence

    Husband v Hikari Pty Ltd, 22 October 2010. This case study shows that a Judge may award damages despite having a pre-existing injury, and future economic loss may be awarded based on income from previous short-term employment.

    1 July 2015

  • Judge to decide what is matter of fact

    Timothy James Klein v SBD Services Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 134, 30 May 2013. This case demonstrates the importance of record keeping and accurate reporting of injuries. If documentation is lacking, it will ultimately fall to the Judge to decide on a matter of fact.

    1 July 2015

  • No proper system of inspection

    Gilmour v State of Queensland [2013] QDC 199 6 September 2013. If a proper inspection had occured it would have identified the risk in time for it to be repaired.

    1 July 2015

  • Damages for care and assistance

    Koven v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd, 25 March 2011. Full damages for care and assistance can be awarded where paid care and assistance was provided even just once between the date of injury and trial, despite being provided gratuitously/for free on all other occasions.

    1 July 2015

  • Employer's duty of care is not absolute

    Baker v Prescare (Corinda) [2014] QDC 159 31 July 2014. This case highlights that while an employer's duty of care is onerous, it is not absolute.

    1 July 2015

  • Basic task results in negligence

    Taylor v Invitro Technologies Pty Ltd, 15 March 2011. This case study talks about how an employer needs to carefully consider complaints made by employees and respond to them in an appropriate way.

    1 July 2015