A lawyer is suing Woolworths in Australia for AUD1.3 million after allegedly slipping on a shallot in one of their stores.

Olga Day, who qualified in Russia and is currently completing a law degree in Australia, issued a claim stating that she was in one of Woolworths' stores in 2014 when she slipped and injured herself on a shallot. She alleges that an in-store product demonstration for a constipation aid distracted her so that that she failed to see the rogue vegetable on the floor. Day brought her claim against Woolworths and two product demonstration companies, CPM Australia and Retail Activation.

 

 The sad case of the Lady of Shallot (sorry) 


However, the Russian lawyer may have also slipped up in her approach to the litigation. Lawyers for CPM Australia and Retail Activation say that Day and her husband contacted the companies' insurer, Zurich, and harassed its staff. The lawyers told a Brisbane court that the couple accused Zurich's directors of breaching their duty by misusing shareholders' funds and dragging the claim through the courts. They also said that Mr and Mrs Day threatened the insurer that they would go to the press to reveal alleged misconduct and corrupt conduct by Zurich.  

The presiding judge, Justice Douglas, ordered that Day be banned from directly contacting Zurich and that she all communication should go to their lawyers instead.

 

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 27 April 18 10:33

How could the product demonstration companies be liable? Surely their duty of care doesn't extend to cleaning up onions in premises they don't occupy or control?!

Anonymous 27 April 18 12:28

While I don't comment on the merits of her case the judge got it wrong to tell her to go through the lawyers, she has every right to try and resolve the matter directly with the insurers.

Anonymous 27 April 18 13:40

Not if the insurers don't want to hear from her and are represented by solicitors in contentious litigation she doesn't.

Anonymous 27 April 18 15:15

Yes she does, both parties have a duty to try to resolve the matter without recourse to the court. Otherwise insurers would just hide behind lawyers all the time. She's entitled to try and resolve the matter directly with the insurers - this judge got it wrong. Doesn't matter if the insurers want to hear from her or not.

Anonymous 27 April 18 18:25

Actually I think we’ve all missed the big picture here. What kind of constipation aid (possibly involving shallots) gets “demonstrated” in the middle of a supermarket? I’m not surprised she was distracted.

Roll On Friday 28 April 18 11:04

If the insurers want to use lawyers then she must go through them; same with everyone else. The judge is right.

Anonymous 28 April 18 12:16

No the judge got it wrong and has done a big favour for the defendants. She's representing herself, so she can deal directly with the insurers if she wants, she's not bound by solicitor's regulations. The judge should be encouraging the parties to resolve matters as cheaply as possible and without using the court's time, not ordering her to deal with lawyers which will only increase costs.

The judge doesn't have the power to order her not to deal with the insurers directly and she should write to the court saying this and continue to attempt to resolve the matter with the insurers in the meantime. Also, her allegations against the insurers directors are quite separate to her claim and she needs to write to the insurers to make them aware of these allegations, otherwise they will be in a position of deniability later. Its cheaper and easier for everyone to resolve the claim directly.

Anonymous 01 May 18 14:31

Re. the second comment: "...and that shallot" - I don't think you received the commendation you deserved for this inspired (relatively) observation. Commentators got a bit caught up in not seeing wood for trees (of whatever the tedious article was about). Thanks.