A Queensland worker’s claim for damages arising out of a workplace injury was dismissed after the court found no breach of duty by her employer. The finding in Nemet v Hally Labels Pty Ltd [2025] QDC is a cautionary tale about the risks of going it alone in court.
Facts
The plaintiff, Ms Nemet, was employed by the defendant, Hally Labels Pty Ltd, as a print machinist.
On 17 May 2015, the plaintiff was performing her work duties, cleaning an impression unit from a print machine, when a blade fell and made contact with the plaintiff’s left thumb and hand. As a result, the plaintiff sustained a laceration of the dorsal left thumb and an extensor tendon injury.
The defendant had supplied its employees with cut-resistant gloves to mitigate this risk of injury, but, as the plaintiff admits, “in a moment of inadvertence,” the plaintiff was not wearing the gloves at the time of suffering injury.
The plaintiff had instructed a law firm to act on her behalf during the initial stages of her claim, but her solicitors withdrew after commencing litigation. The plaintiff proceeded to trial self-represented and was the sole witness in her case.
Findings
Liability
The Plaintiff’s case was dismissed, with no damages awarded, as a result of the Plaintiff’s failure to establish the Defendant had breached its duty of care.
She premised her case on the following allegations of negligence:
- Failing to ensure that the plaintiff and/or her supervisors were provided with adequate induction, training, instruction and/or supervision with respect to safe work practices and procedures;
- Failing to ensure that the plaintiff was provided with a safe system of work;
- Failing to have in place any formal system of work for the safe planning of the machine;
- Failure to have adequate signage within the workplace so as to remind the plaintiff to wear safety gloves at moments of inadvertence;
- Failing to carry out adequate risk assessments, which, if properly carried out, would have revealed a foreseeable risk of injury;
- Failing to warn the plaintiff of a risk of injury to which she was exposed;
- Failing to take reasonable care for the safety of the plaintiff; and
- Breaching sections 19,20 and 27 of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) (WHSA) by failing to properly manage the plaintiff’s exposure to risk, failing to identify the hazard to which she was exposed, failing to assess the risk of her sustaining injury and failing to decide upon and/or implement and/or monitor and review control measures so as to prevent and minimise the risks of the plaintiff suffering an injury.
The plaintiff was largely unable to recall many aspects of her induction and training when questioned in cross-examination. The defendant, on the other hand, provided ample evidence that demonstrated there was no deficiency in the training, instructions or supervision. His Honour, Dearden DCJ, provided “it is an irresistible conclusion that no breach of duty has been established by the plaintiff in relation to the adequacy of induction, training, instruction or supervision concerning safe work practices and procedures.”
Further, the plaintiff failed to prove that an alternative safe system of work was available, what it would have looked like and what, if any, deficiency existed in the system of work in place at the time of her employment. Rather, it was held that requiring workers to use cut resistant gloves while handling the blades from a machine was a reasonable precaution and, therefore, a safe system of work.
The allegations at points three to eight were found to be unsubstantiated as the Plaintiff provided no evidence to support her claims of negligence.
His Honour concluded that the plaintiff clearly failed to prove the defendant breached its duty of care, and the claim should be dismissed. Nevertheless, he considered contributory negligence and quantum in the event of an appeal, finding his opinion on liability to be incorrect.
Contributory Negligence
The plaintiff admitted she “subconsciously chose not to” wear the cut resistant gloves as she “just wasn’t thinking clearly”. She did not identify any aspect of her work that influenced her choice not to wear the gloves provided.
This failure to use the cut resistant gloves exposed her to the serious risk of harm that eventuated. His Honour therefore concluded that her “departure from the standards expected of a reasonable worker was substantial and was a significant contributing factor to the injury that occurred.”
The defendant noted this matter drew similarities with that of Kennedy v Queensland Alumina Limited [2015] QDC 317, in which damages were reduced by 50 per cent due to the plaintiff’s failure to follow instructions having a significant causative effect on his injury. His Honour agreed and concluded that if any damages were to be awarded, the damages should be reduced by 50 per cent for contributory negligence.
Quantum Assessment
The Plaintiff had not called any expert evidence in respect of the effect of her injury on her future earning capacity, hence Dr Prue Fitzpatrick’s evidence submitted by the Defendant was unchallenged. Further, she failed to provide any evidentiary basis to support her claim for past and future economic loss, and future special future damages.
His Honour concluded that if liability had been established, the plaintiff’s damages would have been reduced by 50 per cent on account of her contributory negligence, and therefore, she would have been entitled to a sum of $23,83.90.
Instead, the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed entirely.
Case Commentary
This matter raises the importance of engaging legal advice; the plaintiff may have reduced her prospects of success by not having qualified professionals presenting her case.
Regardless, even when a plaintiff is self-represented, it remains crucial for defence lawyers to approach the matter with the same diligence and preparation as one would against other lawyers. After all, the court can only rely on the evidence presented and the legal principles relied upon.
This article was written by Graduate, Caitlin Elwood