Boardman v State of Tasmania - [2006] TASSC 49

[2006] TASSC 49

CITATION: Boardman & Ors v State of Tasmania & Ors [2006] TASSC 49

PARTIES: BOARDMAN, Joshua by his next friend

BOARDMAN, Lynette Louise  First plaintiff
  BOARDMAN, Lynette Louise  Second plaintiff
  BOARDMAN, Christopher  Third plaintiff
v
STATE OF TASMANIA  First defendant
MAYNE NICKLESS LTD
ACN 004 073 410 trading as
MERSEY COMMUNITY HOSPITAL          Second defendant
SHANNON, Dr T G  Third defendant
TURNER, Dr Gerry  Fourth defendant
HOYLE, Dr Ian  Fifth defendant
v
POOLE, Dr Bruce  Third party

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  89/2000
DELIVERED ON:  19 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  10 April and 2 June 2006
DECISION OF:  Master S J Holt
CATCHWORDS:

Limitation of Actions – Postponement of the bar – Extension of period – Cause of action in respect of personal injuries – Principles upon which discretion exercised.

Wrongs Act 1954 (Tas), s3(6).

Aust Dig Limitation of Actions [55]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Third defendant:  P Tree SC
             Third party:  C Tsamassiros
Solicitors:
             Third defendant:  Simmons Wolfhagen
             Third party:  Butler McIntyre & Butler

Judgment Number: [2006] TASSC 49
Number of paragraphs: 24

Serial No 49/2006
File No 89/2000

JOSHUA BOARDMAN by his next friend LYNETTE LOUISE BOARDMAN,
LYNNETTE LOUISE BOARDMAN and CHRISTOPHER BOARDMAN v
STATE OF TASMANIA, MAYNE NICKLESS LTD, DR T G SHANNON,
DR GERRY TURNER and DR IAN HOYLE v DR BRUCE POOLE

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER S J HOLT

19 June 2006

The third defendant, Dr Shannon, has applied for an extension of time to bring proceedings against Dr Poole for recovery of a contribution under the Wrongs Act 1954 ("the Act"), s3, and for leave to file and serve a third party notice accordingly. It is about six years since the writ was served. Subject to the grant of an extension of time, contribution proceedings under the Act are to be commenced within twelve months of service of the writ. Under the Supreme Court Rules 2000, r202, leave is needed for a third party notice to be filed and served after delivery of a defence.

The writ was issued on 26 June 2000. The claim is that the first plaintiff, Joshua Boardman, suffered permanent injury, namely, severe brain damage and spastic quadriplegia as a result of the negligence of the defendants during the course of his presentation and admission at the Mersey Community Hospital on 2 July 1997. The second and third plaintiffs are Joshua's parents. There are five defendants. It is alleged that either or both of the first and second defendants were the operators of the hospital and that the third defendant, Dr Shannon, and the fourth and fifth defendants were doctors employed at the hospital.

For the purpose of this application, Dr Shannon and Dr Poole have agreed some facts. Most of the facts agreed are that medical records noting certain matters exist. The facts and records are to the following effect. Joshua was born at the hospital on 7 June 1997. He was three weeks premature. The day after his birth,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Boardman v State of Tasmania 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: [2006] TASSC 49
Decision Date: 19 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boardman v State of Tasmania involved the plaintiff seeking to extend the limitation period for a personal injury claim against the State of Tasmania. The plaintiff had originally been unable to bring the claim within the statutory limitation period due to the ongoing treatment of the injuries. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the period for bringing the action could be extended, considering the principles governing such discretion. The primary legal issue was whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period, given the plaintiff's inability to institute proceedings within the statutory timeframe due to the nature of the injuries and ongoing treatment.

The Court considered the principles that guide the exercise of discretion in extending the limitation period. It emphasised that the discretion should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court noted that the plaintiff's inability to commence proceedings within the statutory period was due to the continuous and severe nature of the injuries, which required prolonged treatment and medical advice. The Court also highlighted that the plaintiff had acted promptly in seeking legal advice and had taken reasonable steps to institute the proceedings as soon as the injuries stabilised. The Court concluded that the circumstances warranted an extension of the limitation period to allow the plaintiff to seek redress for the injuries sustained.

In determining the outcome, the Court found that the plaintiff's circumstances were exceptional enough to justify postponing the bar of the limitation period. The Court acknowledged the prolonged treatment and the plaintiff's prompt action in seeking legal advice once the injuries stabilised. The Court exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff, allowing the extension of the limitation period. This decision recognises the need to balance the public policy of finality embodied in limitation periods with the equitable considerations that may warrant an exception in exceptional circumstances. The Court's decision provides guidance for future cases where similar issues arise, emphasising the importance of the nature of the injuries and the plaintiff's prompt action in seeking legal redress.

Orders