The recent Supreme Court of Queensland decision of Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 352 acts as a reminder in personal injury law that clauses within settlement deeds are interpreted with precision. In this matter, the Court ruled that a worker’s attempt to pursue common law damages was barred by a settlement deed signed nearly eight years prior for the exact same incident.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, Ms Hamde Bakhit, was employed by the Defendant, Hartley Healy Pty Ltd, a specialist family law firm. During her employment with the Defendant between April 2015 and April 2016, the Plaintiff alleged she was subjected to sexual harassment and workplace bullying by a solicitor at the firm.
In 2017, the Plaintiff made a complaint against the Defendant to what is now the Queensland Human Rights Commission, then the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland. This complaint resulted in a mediation where a Deed of Settlement was executed.
Under the terms of the Deed of Settlement, the Defendant was required to pay the Plaintiff $30,000. In return, the Plaintiff agreed to discharge the Defendant from any future actions and claims arising from her employment “…other than any claim for statutory benefits under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) or for unpaid superannuation which [the Plaintiff] may be entitled to make.”
In 2021, the Plaintiff commenced a claim seeking common law damages for negligence causing personal injuries. The Plaintiff argued that as she was pursuing a claim under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“WCRA”), her claim therefore fell within the above exception allowed by the Deed. Opposingly, the Defendant argued that the 2017 settlement had extinguished her right to pursue common law damages, and by pursuing the claim, she was breaching the Deed.
THE DECISION
The Court accepted that in 2017, when both parties signed the settlement Deed, it was their goal to finalise the claim and close the door on the dispute. In turn, the Court had to decide whether the “exception” for statutory benefits left open a window for a new common law claim.
The Court found that the phrase “statutory benefits” has a very narrow and specific meaning in Queensland. While the Plaintiff argued that a damages claim should be included in such definition, the Court held that “damages” and “statutory benefits” are two completely different things. In the Court’s view, one party cannot sign a settlement Deed releasing another party from all claims and then try to sue the other party for the exact same thing almost eight years later.
Further, the Court considered whether the exception clause was written to abide by section 110 of the WCRA. Section 110 of the WCRA states that a person cannot contract out of an entitlement to “compensation”. Because of this section, the above clause was considered to be included to make sure the Deed was legally valid. The Court held that the clause was a shield to protect the agreement, not a sword for the worker to use to start a new case.
As the Plaintiff proceeded with the legal claim, despite the settlement in 2017, the Court found that she had breached the Deed of Settlement from 2017. This resulted in the legal claim being stopped and the Plaintiff being ordered to pay the Defendant’s legal costs for the 2021 claim.
OUTCOME
This case demonstrates that Courts place a high value on the finality of a signed agreement. The Court further emphasised that the final settlement is intended to end the dispute, and the courts will not allow a worker to use technical clauses as a method of reopening a claim for common law damages.
Ultimately, the outcome highlights that if a worker accepts a settlement to resolve a dispute, they must be aware that, unless a common law damages claim for negligence for personal injuries is clearly excluded from being a barred claim in the Deed of Settlement, the door to future damages claims is likely closed for good.
This article was written by Paralegal, Claudia Finch.
