Eyles v Sydney Skydivers Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 1
Decision delivered on 19 January 2022
Background
The plaintiff suffered fractures in his right leg when landing during a skydiving course on 30 October 2016. Throughout 2017 and 2018, the plaintiff’s legal representatives raised the defendant’s duty of disclosure, but did not make a request for disclosure pursuant to s 27(1)(b) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (“the PIPA”). The matter proceeded to an unsuccessful compulsory conference in November 2018
Litigation Timeline
The plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim on 7 January 2019
The defendant filed a Defence on 15 February 2019 and, on 19 February 2019, served its list of documents
The defendant amended its defence in April 2019
The plaintiff filed a reply in May 2019
Disclosure Issue
Certain documents in the defendant’s list of documents had not been disclosed prior to the compulsory conference. These documents included a questionnaire filled in by hand by the plaintiff, waivers, Australian Parachute Federation Ltd Member Details and a reserve log. The questionnaire was pleaded in the Defence.
The plaintiff argued that the Defendant ought to be precluded from using, at trial, six documents of the list of documents received on 19 February 2019. The plaintiff contended the defendant, having failed to disclose the contested documents, must be precluded by s 32(2) of the PIPA from using them in subsequent court proceedings on the claim.
The defendant argued that it may rely on any documents referenced in the list of documents served on 19 February 2019. The defendant informed the Court that the documents were not disclosed due to an oversight on the part of the instructing firm. The defendant sought the Court to exercise its discretion under s 32(2) of the PIPA to allow the defendant to use the documents at trial.
The Court considered the principles of Haug v Jupiters Limited [2008] 1 Qd R 276, when Jerrard JA referred to the statement in the explanatory notes to the Personal Injuries Proceedings Bill 2002, “that the clear purpose of the division of the PIPA in which s. 27 appears is to put the parties in the position where they have enough information to assess liability and quantum in relation to a claim.”
Decision
It was held that five of the six documents were not required to be disclosed under the PIPA as they were related to the contractual relationship between the parties and not about the incident. However, the questionnaire completed by the plaintiff contained information regarding safety procedures as well as an acknowledgement by the plaintiff that he was responsible for landing his parachute unassisted.
The court held the defendant was prevented from using the questionnaire in evidence at trial.