Brook v Boonah Shire Council

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Brook v Boonah Shire Council [2007] QSC 044

PARTIES:

Trevor John Brook
Applicant

Boonah Shire Council
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

S 769 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

2 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2007

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

1.          That leave be granted to abridge time for bringing this application.

2.          That leave be granted to amend the application to substitute Boonah Shire Council with Local Government WorkCare.

3. That the applicant have leave to commence the proceedings stayed until he complies with the requirements of Part 5 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

4.          That no order be made as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS - CLAIMS FOR COMPENSATION - FAILURE TO MAKE CLAIM WITHIN TIME - GENERALLY - When an applicant seeks leave to commence proceedings under section 305 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 despite non-compliance with section 280 of the Act – Whether an application to extend time pursuant to the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 must be made before leave is given pursuant to section 305.

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) s3
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s x.
Charlton v WorkCover Queensland [2006] QCA 498, considered
Davidson v State of Queensland [2006] HCA 21, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr AD Stobie

Mr WD Campbell

SOLICITORS:

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

WHITE J

No S769 of 2007

TREVOR JOHN BROOK	Applicant
and
BOONAH SHIRE COUNCIL	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/02/2007

ORDER

HER HONOUR: The applicant seeks leave to commence proceedings pursuant to section 305 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 for damages for injuries allegedly occurring in an incident on the 3rd of June 1997 at Maroon and their sequelae when in the employment of the respondent, the Boonah Shire Council.

He sustained some injury to his back and spent time off work immediately after the event, and from time to time thereafter.

From February 2005, the condition and pain in his back seemed worse.  On the 4th of January 2006 he consulted with his general practitioner who referred him a specialist.  The applicant consulted a neurologist in early 2006, and on the 2nd of February 2006 maintains that for the first time he learnt of the true nature of his back injury and that he would be unable to continue his work as a labourer.  He did not return to work.

The radiology demonstrated degenerative change in his lumbar spine.  Dr Campbell, the neurologist, recommended a decompression laminectomy.  Dr Campbell wrote that the applicant's referring doctor, and by inference the applicant, did not mention to him any work-related injury and did not attribute the current changes and symptoms to anything other degenerative change.

On the 6th of March 2006, the applicant made an application for workers compensation for degeneration of his lumbar spine and left sciatica.  On the 6th of September 2006, the Queensland Local Government WorkCare…