Bates v Australia Meat Holdings P/L

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Bates v Australia Meat Holdings P/L [2001] QSC 262
PARTIES: GENENE MARIE BATES
(applicant)
v
AUSTRALIA 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 respondent
SOLICITORS: Watling Roche Lawyers for the applicant
Thompson Hannan for the respondent
  1. 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

  1. 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.

  1. 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. 

  1. 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. 

  1. 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.…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2001] QSC 262
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Bates sought an extension of the limitation period for an action against Australia Meat Holdings P/L due to personal injuries. The dispute hinged on whether a material fact of decisive character was within the knowledge of the applicant when the limitation period was set to expire.

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.