Charles FRANCIS AM RFD QC interview 4/11/2003

In 1968, you acted for a little girl whose ear was partly burnt when she was a baby; she was injured in a kitchen fire in the house where she and her parents were boarders. At that time you succeeded in obtaining a quite substantial sum for her as means for compensation. It never got paid though, or only partially paid?

Only partially paid. I remember that case well. She was a very attractive little girl and fortunately she was able to wear her hair over her ear so it was not obvious. Probably today they could’ve done far more for the ears with plastic surgery, than they were able to do at that time. No doubt she’d be a middle-aged woman at this time, and probably still wearing her hair over her ears.

It was a sad story though, because the injuries aside from the partially burnt ears, she sustained other injuries as well

Yes she did.

Do you think with negligence laws as they are now, would the owners of the boarding house be hit for far more these days? It’s a far more litigious society today.

They probably would be of course. For a lot of negligence claims now, recent legislation has prevented them from being brought and amongst other things, you’ve got to establish it is a serious injury and there are a number of legal criteria as to what constitutes a serious injury.

For my own part, I think these things are very unfair and they are in particular very unfair to workers. If a worker is injured in the course of his work, he can’t sue the person who is negligent and he can only obtain workers compensation.

I was in what was a classic case; this finally was settled in 1996, but this young man was working temporarily at a hotel for one function where he was guarding a twenty first-birthday party and he was on the door.

There was a man who was drinking in the hotel who was well-known as a violent man. The manager (at the hotel) knew he was a violent man and this man tried to get into the function and my client would not let him in.

The hotel staff then formed the view there was likely to be trouble (the young man was working temporarily and knew nothing of the background of this man). The man went away and got a gun and shot him through the stomach and he had very serious injuries that altered his whole life.

The hotel in my view was plainly negligent and also the man who shot him had some assets. We attempted to sue both the hotel and the man who shot him and we were barred from doing so by the legislation, which prevents a worker from suing when he’s injured in course of his employment.

Now, I think that’s a grave injustice and also it means that the state has to pick up the tab (a much lower tab), whereas this ought have been borne by the insurers of the hotel and the man (if he’s got any insurance or assets).

I know you’ve written a lot of articles. Have you written an article to this effect about the need for change in this regard?

No I haven’t.

Would you want to?

If I get time - yes. I think there’s a good many people writing articles about this right now, but the government seems to be very firm and I think it’s a grave injustice and in particular, it’s a great injustice to workers and yet the Labor Party is supposed to represent the workers.

Conducted for the Bar Oral History project by Juliette Brodsky in the Neil McPhee Room, Owen Dixon Chambers and filmed by Stewart Carter (People Pictures)