SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY: BRISBANE
NUMBER: N/A

Plaintiff: Mario Perez

AND
First Defendant: Tweed Balustrades Pty Ltd (ACN 097032792, ABN 31 099 032 790)
AND
Second Defendant: Brad Jones Builders (ACN 612 056 158, ABN 88 002 122 917)
AND
Third Defendant: Marissa Herbert

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

This claim in this proceeding is made in reliance on the following facts:

1.The Parties

At all material times:

a) Marissa Herbert (Third Defendant), was the occupier of 6 Ocean View Road, Burleigh Heads 4219
(“the property”).

The Third Defendant was present at the property and had input as to the various activities of the
construction workers on-site.

b) Brad Jones Builders (Second Defendant) was contracted by the Third Defendant to oversee the
construction of the property and to acquire the services of sub-contractors if needed.

c) Tweed Balustrades (First Defendant) was one such contractor that the Second Defendant had
engaged.

The Plaintiff was on-site in his capacity as a foreman under the employ of the First Defendant.

Name: Mario Perez

Address: 158 Clothiers Creek Road, Clothiers Creek,
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
NSW 2484
Filed on Behalf of the Plaintiff
Form 16, Version 2 Phone No: 222151513
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 Fax No: 67256480
Rules 22, 146
Email: MarioPforPlaintiffPerez@gmail.com
2. On October 12th, 2022, at about 9:15am, the plaintiff, during his work at the
property, fell down a flight of stairs sustaining several serious injuries.

Particulars
a) At the material time, the plaintiff’s assigned task was to carry seventy glass panels
weighing 85kgs each through the property to the pool area with the assistance of a co-
worker.
b) From the fall, the plaintiff’s head was knocked unconscious and suffered a broken
ankle, left arm and three ribs.

3. Before commencing work, the third defendant refused entrance to the property unless the
Plaintiff wore only his socks inside the property

4. The plaintiff's attempt to persuade the third defendant to permit him footwear was refused

Particulars
a) The Third Defendant 's rule prohibiting footwear inside the property was to avoid
possible staining to the floor surface inside the property
b) The floor was made of Brazilian teak which had been recently installed and
varnished.

5. After the conversation with the third defendant, the plaintiff appealed to the second
defendant with the same concerns which were dismissed.

Particulars
a) The Plaintiff spoke to a partner of Tweed Balustrades, John Herman, who was the
Plaintiff’s first point of contact for any on-site issues.
b) The Plaintiff’s concerns were dismissed on the grounds that the work they had
been contracted for was behind schedule

6. Complying with the restrictions, the plaintiff along with his co-worker, began
carrying the glass panels through the house without appropriate footwear, the accident
occurred shortly after.

7. Duty of Care

a) Brad Jones Builders as the principal builder owed a duty to ensure that the site was a safe
environment for any sub-contractors and to allow for safe work practices.
b) Tweed Balustrades as the employer of the plaintiff had a duty of care to ensure that the
plaintiff was able to perform his work in a safe environment according to safe work practices
 c) Marissa Herbert as the occupier of the property had a duty of care to ensure that
those present in the property were given a safe environment to work in and were free
to work according to safe work practices.

8. Common Question of Law or Fact

a) Whether the defendants negligence resulted in an increased likelihood that the
plaintiff would have fallen (risk of harm)
b) Whether the risk of harm was foreseeable, considered in the context and severity of
the harm

9. The defendants’ negligence directly increased the likelihood and severity of the
plaintiff’s harm suffered.

Particulars of Negligence
a) Failure to ensure that workers on site/property were able to perform their tasks safely
given risk factors
b) Failure to take necessary precautions to avoid foreseeable harm eg. Placing tarp over
slippery floor
c) Failure to listen to reasonable requests for appropriate precautions
d) Failure to acknowledge the presence of foreseeable risk
e) Failure to exercise appropriate caution/precaution given the context and the presence
of inherent risk.
f) Failure of on-site builder to inspect, ensure and maintain adherence to safe working
practices
g) Failure of employer to address the risk when informed by plaintiff
h) Refusal of occupier to take action when informed of risk.

10. As a result of the defendants’ negligence the plaintiff has suffered damage, injury,
and loss.

Particulars of Injuries
a) Broken right ankle
b) Broken arm
c) Three broken ribs
d) Head injury leading causing temporary unconsciousness

Particulars of Disabilities
a) Complete and permanent loss of motor function in right ankle

Particulars of Out-Of-Pocket Expenses

a) Costs pertaining to the re-fusing procedure of broken ankle.
Particulars of Economic Loss
Plaintiff claims past and future loss for the following:
a) Complete loss of income and earning capacity in the future
b) Loss of possibility to continue his sole, life-long profession of 23 years
c) Loss of possibility to engage in similar professions due to permanent and total loss of motor
control in right ankle.

The plaintiff claims the following relief:

Damages
Costs
Interests
Any order the Court deems appropriate

(set out in full the relief claimed including full particulars of the nature and amount of
each type of damages claimed and full particulars of interest required by Rule 159)

Signed:

Description: Solicitor

[This pleading was settled by Isaac Chin of Counsel].

NOTICE AS TO DEFENCE

Your defence must be attached to your notice of intention to defend.

 NOTICE UNDER RULE 150(3) 1

The plaintiff claims:

$...................

$.................... for interest; and

$....................for costs of issuing the claim and this statement of claim.

The proceeding ends if you pay those amounts before the time for filing your notice of
intention to defend ends. If you are in default by not filing a notice of intention to
defend within the time allowed, the plaintiff is entitled to claim additional costs of
$............., costs of entering judgment in default.

1
This notice is to be included if the plaintiff’s claim is for a debt or liquidated demand only.