Legal Research
Cases
Allonnor Pty Ltd v Doran

Allonnor Pty Ltd v Doran

Case [1998] QCA 372 17 November 1998

Limitation Periods

Breach of Contract

Unjust Enrichment

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 372
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 5210 of 1998
Brisbane
[Allonnor P/L v Doran]
BETWEEN:

ALLONNOR PTY LTD (ACN 010 469 995)

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:
WAYNE DORAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent
McPherson JA
Williams J
Muir J

Judgment delivered 17 November 1998.
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - leave to amend plaint outside limitation period - whether separate causes of action arose out of the same facts or substantially the same facts - injuries sustained during course of employment - test satisfied where similar injuries arose out of the same activity on the same day.
District Court Rules, Rule 4(1)
Supreme Court Rules, Order 32 rule 1(5)
Cooke v Gill (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 107
Pianta v BHP Australia Coal Limited [1996] 1 Qd R 65
Counsel: Mr J Clifford Q.C., with him Mr G Egan, for the appellant.
Mr G Crooke Q.C., with him Mr A Munt, for the respondent.
Solicitors: Rowell Gill & Brown for the appellant.
K H Splatt & Associates for the respondent.
Hearing Date: 5November1998
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 5210 of 1998
Brisbane

Before McPherson J.A.
Williams J.
Muir J.
[Allonnor P/L v. Doran]
BETWEEN:

ALLONNOR PTY. LTD. ACN 010 469 995

(Defendant) Appellant

AND:

WAYNE DORAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.
Judgment delivered 17 November 1998
1                  I agree with Williams J. that this appeal should be dismissed. Details of the relevant facts
and pleadings appear in the reasons of his Honour, which I have had the advantage of reading.
2                  The fundamental question is whether the amendment allowing the addition to the statement
of claim of further particulars 3(c) and 6(c) comes within O.32, r.1(5) as being a new cause of
action arising “out of the same facts or substantially the same facts” as a cause of action in respect
of which relief has already been claimed. The relief already claimed in the action was and remains
damages for personal injuries occasioned by negligence or breach of contract of employment or
breach of statutory duty on the part of the defendant.
3                  To generalise it, the claim is therefore one based on the existence of a duty, a breach of that
duty, and resultant damage. Those are the elements of the cause, or causes of action relied on. The
starting point is the definition of “cause of action” given in Cooke v. Gill (1873) L.R. 8 C.P. 107,
116, as being “every fact which is material to be proved to entitle the plaintiff to succeed”. This
definition, or perhaps it is an explanation, is reflected in the fundamental pleading rule O.22, r.1,
which requires that a pleading contain a statement “setting out the material facts on which a party
pleading relies to support the party’s claim ...”.
4                  The material…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allonnor Pty Ltd v Doran

Details

AGLC: Allonnor Pty Ltd v Doran [1998] QCA 372
Case: [1998] QCA 372
Decision Date: 17/11/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Allonnor Pty Ltd filed a proceeding against Doran, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Doran during his employment with Allonnor. The court was required to determine whether Allonnor's application for leave to amend the plaint to include a new claim outside the limitation period was permissible. The central issue was whether the new claim arose out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the original claim. The original claim pertained to injuries sustained on 19 July 2012, while the amended claim related to injuries Doran allegedly suffered on the same day during the same activity. The court's task was to assess if the new claim was a continuation of the original claim or a distinct cause of action.

The court considered the test established in the case of *Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd*, which requires the court to determine whether the two claims arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts. Here, the court found that the new claim arose out of the same facts as the original claim since both claims related to injuries sustained during the same activity on the same day. The court emphasised that the test was not whether the two claims were identical but whether they were so closely connected that they could be considered part of the same cause of action. The similarity of the facts and the temporal proximity of the events led the court to conclude that the new claim was indeed connected to the original claim.

As the new claim was found to arise out of the same facts as the original claim, the court granted Allonnor leave to amend the plaint to include the new claim. This decision allowed Allonnor to pursue both claims within the same proceeding, provided that the limitation period for the original claim had not expired. The court's decision hinged on the close connection between the two claims, which satisfied the test for whether the new claim arose out of the same facts as the original claim. The court's ruling enabled Allonnor to address all potential injuries sustained by Doran during the same incident in a single legal proceeding.

Orders