Carter v Ansett Australia Ltd

[2000] QDC 49

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carter v Ansett Australia Ltd [2000] QDC 049

PARTIES:

DEBORAH ELIZABETH CARTER
(Applicant)
v.
ANSETT AUSTRALIA LIMITED
(ACN 004 209 410)
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D 1227 of 2000

PROCEEDING:

Civil

COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2000

JUDGE:

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:

COUNSEL:

SOLICITORS:

Judge Brabazon Q.C.

Pursuant to s. 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (as amended) the period of limitation for an action by Deborah Elizabeth Carter against Ansett Australia Limited, for damages for personal injury suffered by her as a result of exposure to toxic chemicals whilst in the employ of Ansett, be extended so that it expires on 31^st August 2000.

That the costs of and incidental to this application including the costs of the adjournment of 13^th April 2000 be the parties costs in the action to be commenced by her.

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – personal injuries – extension of time -  applicant seeks leave to appeal on basis of  lack of knowledge of a “material fact of a decisive character” as per Limitation of Actions Act 1974

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 s.31

Chew v East West Airlines Limited and Ansett
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd (1988) 2 Qd R 325
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1983) 154 CLR. 234
Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Bessser Qld Limited) Ltd 2 [1990] Qd R 301
Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R

Mr Goodwin for the applicant
Mr Keane Q.C. and Mr Kelly for the respondent

Messrs Hall Payne Lawyers for the applicant
Messrs Clayton Utz for the respondent

1. Ms Carter used to work for Ansett Australia Limited as a flight attendant.  She often flew on BAE 146-200 series aircraft.  She says that toxic fumes in the cabin have damaged her health.  She wants to sue Ansett.  However, the three year limitation period has expired. 

1. She now applies pursuant to s. 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974, for an extension of time to bring proceedings against Ansett.  The application is opposed.

1. The facts are set out in Ms Carter’s affidavit, and in an affidavit by Ansett’s solicitor.  There has been no cross-examination. 

The Facts

1. Ms Carter has already made an unsuccessful application for worker’s compensation.  It will be helpful to look at that application with some care.  The history of it is closely linked to the merits of her present application. 

1. Ms Carter identifies 18^th November 1994 as the date of her most serious exposure to cabin fumes.  She was on a BAE 146-200 aircraft.  On that date, she says, the cabin was filled with strong fumes on several occasions.  All three flight attendants had to use portable oxygen during the takeoffs and landings during that day.  She developed nausea, headaches, a sore throat and sore eyes during the day.  Afterwards, she complained of chronic symptoms, the worst being severe pharyngitis, extreme lethargy and headaches. 

1. She went to see…