The High Court has ruled that Paul Caruana is barred by a 2004 settlement agreement from pursuing his personal injury action against former employer Fruit of the Loom International Limited. The court decided the issue as a preliminary question in the proceedings; it did not determine the underlying injury allegations.
Mr Caruana’s action, begun by plenary summons in January 2003, alleges that workplace stress resulted from the company’s conduct, including verbal abuse, unfair questioning and rostering, and the loss of his recognition as a shop steward. The company denied that the action was covered by an exception in a discharge agreement signed on 30 April 2004.
The agreement settled employment-related claims, while excluding “my two outstanding employer liability claims for personal injuries”. Mr Caruana argued that the exception included his stress-at-work action. The company said it referred to two claims of which it knew at the time: claims concerning an alleged back injury notified by solicitors in October 2001 and an alleged chest injury involving a forklift, notified in December 2002. The stress claim had been issued but not served, and the company had not been notified of it when the agreement was signed.
Justice Herbert found that the company’s solicitor and Mr Caruana’s union representative, Sean Reilly, intended the exception to cover the two claims identified by their notification dates. The judge accepted that Mr Reilly asked whether there were workplace injury claims to exclude, and that Mr Caruana replied that he knew of two, describing them as a bullying and harassment complaint and a forklift accident.
The judge found that Mr Caruana knew the company was unaware of the stress claim and that four claims were outstanding, but his answer led Mr Reilly to believe that the two claims identified by the company were the ones to be excluded. The judge found no misrepresentation or concealment by the company’s solicitor and no basis for Mr Caruana to rely on unilateral mistake.
Applying evidence about the negotiations to identify what the agreement’s reference meant, Justice Herbert found that the exception covered only the October 2001 and December 2002 claims. He also accepted that Mr Reilly explained the agreement before Mr Caruana signed it. The court therefore held that Mr Caruana was bound by the agreement and estopped from prosecuting this action. The ruling resolved the preliminary issue, rather than the merits of the alleged workplace conduct or injury.