SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Bates v Australia Meat Holdings P/L [2001] QSC 262 PARTIES: GENENE MARIE BATES
(applicant)
vAUSTRALIA MEAT HOLDINGS PTY LTD
ACN 011 062 338
(respondent)FILE NO: 4099 of 2001 DIVISION: Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 25 July 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 17 July 2001 JUDGE: Mullins J ORDER:
The period of limitation for the action proposed to be brought by the applicant against the respondent be extended so that it expires 1 year after 6 August 2000.
CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – PERSONAL INJURY – whether a material fact of a decisive character was within means of knowledge.
Limitation of Actions Act 1974
Carlowe v Frigmobile Pty Ltd [1999] QCA 527 (22 December 1999)
Goebel v Cameron Pastoral Company [2000] QSC 408 (9 November 2000)
Pizer v Ansett Australia Ltd [1998] QCA 298 (29 September 1998)COUNSEL: M Morrisey with JM Barnett for the applicant
M Grant-Taylor SC for the respondentSOLICITORS: Watling Roche Lawyers for the applicant
Thompson Hannan for the respondent
MULLINS J: The applicant applies pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 ("the Act") for an extension of the limitation period applicable to the applicant's cause of action which she alleges arises out of her contracting the disease Q Fever in the course of her employment with the respondent in or around June or July 1993.
Facts
The applicant was born on 24 March 1963. She commenced employment with the respondent at its meatworks in Townsville on 8 May 1989. The applicant worked on the slaughter floor and in the boning room, pet food offal room, tripe room and offal room. The applicant was tested for Q Fever and bucella serology on 27 July 1991 and was negative for both.
Around the end of June or July 1993 the applicant began to feel ill and had several weeks off work staying in bed. On 27 September 1993 the applicant saw Dr Peterson who was employed by the respondent. On 30 September 1993 the applicant had blood tests at the direction of the respondent which revealed serological evidence of past infection with Q Fever.
On 20 October 1993 the applicant applied for workers' compensation. Dr Peterson gave a medical certificate dated 20 October 1993 stating that the applicant was suffering from Q Fever endocarditis. That was the description of the injury shown in the application for compensation. The applicant unsuccessfully endeavoured to return to work on 22 November 1993. The applicant applied to re-open her compensation claim from 22 November 1993. Cardiologist Dr Thoreau examined the applicant and considered that the applicant's heart murmur was congenital and unrelated to Q Fever. The Workers' Compensation Board also sent the applicant to Dr Whitby, consultant physician in infection, who examined the applicant in or around late December 1993.
The applicant received a letter from the Board dated 1 February 1994 which rejected her claim for compensation which was accompanied by a statement of reasons.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Bates v Australia Meat Holdings P/L and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] QSC 262
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had a material fact of decisive character within their knowledge that would have led them to bring the action against the respondent within the original limitation period. The court needed to determine if the application for an extension was made within a reasonable time and if there were exceptional circumstances that justified the extension.
The court held that the applicant was not aware of the material facts necessary to bring the action against the respondent within the original limitation period. The applicant's lack of knowledge was deemed to be due to exceptional circumstances, which warranted an extension of the limitation period. Consequently, the court granted the application for an extension, allowing the period of limitation to expire one year after 6 August 2000. This decision enabled the applicant to bring the action within the extended timeframe.
Orders
Orders of the court
The period of limitation for the action proposed to be brought by the applicant against the respondent be extended so that it expires 1 year after 6 August 2000.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.