Castillon v P & 0 Ports Ltd - [2005] QDC 180

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Castillon v P & 0 Ports Ltd [2005] QDC 180

PARTIES:

LEON CASTILLON
Plaintiff

v
P & 0 PORTS LIMITED
Defendant

FILE NO/S:

445/03

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October, 16 November 2004 and 22 February 2005

JUDGE:

Rackemann DCJ

ORDER:

It is declared that:

1. The applicant/plaintiff was a person entitled to seek damages for an injury, being bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, suffered over a period of time, pursuant to s253(1)(a)(ii) and s265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

2. That the applicant/plaintiff was entitled to rely on the descriptions in the Notices of Assessment and Damages Certificates by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period and in applying for the s305 order and that the applicant/plaintiff is not prevented from commencing these proceedings for the injury the subject of the claim for compensation unless the limitation period is found to have already expired by 22 May 2001.

It is ordered that:

3. Pursuant to UCPR 171 that paragraphs 10B(d) and 10C of the Amended Defence of the defendant be struck out.

4. That there be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Limitation of actions – Extension of limitation period –Material fact of a decisive character - Reliance on WorkCover document – Overtime injury – Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996

Cases cited:

Australian Energy v Leonard Oil NL [No 2] [1988} 2 Qd R

230

Blacktown Concrete Services Pty Ltd v Ultra Refurbishing

and Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) 43 NSWLR 484

Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485

Buyers v Capricorn Commonwealth Management Pty Ltd

(1992) Qd R 306

Berg v Kruger Enterprises (1992) Qd R 301

Daley v Brisbane City Council [2002] QDC 211

Ecrosteel Pty Ltd v Pefor Printing Ply Ltd (Santow J, 12

November 1997, unreported Supreme Court of NSW)

Hallmark — Minx Ply Ltd v Ryherczyk [1998] QCA 254

Kelly v Croft Sheetmetal Manufacturing Pty Ltd [2002] QSC
412

Miller v Broadbent (unreported)
Platton v WJ VP Ply Ltd (2004) SC 258

Repatriation Commission v Nation (1955) 57 FCR 25

COUNSEL:

GJ Cross for the applicant/plaintiff

RM Treston for the respondent/defendant

SOLICITORS:

Hoolihans Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff
Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent/defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff seeks declarations that the proceedings have been validly commenced with respect to certain injury, an order striking out certain paragraphs of the amended defence and an order extending the limitation period.

The claim was filed on 15 August 2003. The Statement of Claim pleaded that, during the course of the plaintiff’s employment as a machine operator, he was required to operate machinery in conditions which were not reasonably suitable and without reasonable periods of respite and/or rotation of duties and, as a result, suffered personal injury, particularised as follows:

(a) bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome;

(b) chronic pain syndrome;

(c) adjustment disorder with depressed mood; and

(d) bilateral supraspinatus tendonitis.

On the hearing of the application I was informed…

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 Castillon v P & 0 Ports Ltd 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: [2005] QDC 180
Decision Date: 10 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd involves the plaintiff, Castillon, seeking damages for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome sustained over time, under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. The defendant, P & O Ports Ltd, disputed the claim, arguing that the limitation period had expired. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland, and the court was required to determine whether the plaintiff could rely on certain WorkCover documents to extend the limitation period for the claim.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could rely on the descriptions in the Notices of Assessment and Damages Certificates issued by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period for the claim. The court needed to decide if these documents could be considered as material facts of a decisive character that would permit an extension of the limitation period under the applicable legislation. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff was precluded from commencing the proceedings if the limitation period had expired by a specific date.

The court found in favour of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff was entitled to rely on the descriptions in the WorkCover documents for calculating the limitation period. The court held that these documents were material facts of a decisive character, allowing the plaintiff to extend the limitation period. The court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the injury, and that the plaintiff could proceed with the claim unless the limitation period had already expired by 22 May 2001. Consequently, the court struck out certain paragraphs of the defendant's defence and made no order as to costs.

The court's orders include a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to seek damages for the injury and could rely on the WorkCover documents for calculating the limitation period. Additionally, the court ordered that specific paragraphs of the defendant's defence be struck out and made no order regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

It is declared that:

1. The applicant/plaintiff was a person entitled to seek damages for an injury, being bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, suffered over a period of time, pursuant to s253(1)(a)(ii) and s265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

2. That the applicant/plaintiff was entitled to rely on the descriptions in the Notices of Assessment and Damages Certificates by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period and in applying for the s305 order and that the applicant/plaintiff is not prevented from commencing these proceedings for the injury the subject of the claim for compensation unless the limitation period is found to have already expired by 22 May 2001.

It is ordered that:

3. Pursuant to UCPR 171 that paragraphs 10B(d) and 10C of the Amended Defence of the defendant be struck out.

4. That there be no order as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Castillon v P & 0 Ports Ltd [2005] QDC 180
PARTIES:	LEON CASTILLON Plaintiff v P & 0 PORTS LIMITED Defendant
FILE NO/S:	445/03
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October, 16 November 2004 and 22 February 2005
JUDGE:	Rackemann DCJ
ORDER:	It is declared that: 1. The applicant/plaintiff was a person entitled to seek damages for an injury, being bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, suffered over a period of time, pursuant to s253(1)(a)(ii) and s265 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. 2. That the applicant/plaintiff was entitled to rely on the descriptions in the Notices of Assessment and Damages Certificates by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period and in applying for the s305 order and that the applicant/plaintiff is not prevented from commencing these proceedings for the injury the subject of the claim for compensation unless the limitation period is found to have already expired by 22 May 2001. It is ordered that: 3. Pursuant to UCPR 171 that paragraphs 10B(d) and 10C of the Amended Defence of the defendant be struck out. 4. That there be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	Limitation of actions – Extension of limitation period –Material fact of a decisive character - Reliance on WorkCover document – Overtime injury – Bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 Cases cited: Australian Energy v Leonard Oil NL [No 2] [1988} 2 Qd R 230 Blacktown Concrete Services Pty Ltd v Ultra Refurbishing and Construction Pty Ltd (in liq) 43 NSWLR 484 Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485 Buyers v Capricorn Commonwealth Management Pty Ltd (1992) Qd R 306 Berg v Kruger Enterprises (1992) Qd R 301 Daley v Brisbane City Council [2002] QDC 211 Ecrosteel Pty Ltd v Pefor Printing Ply Ltd (Santow J, 12 November 1997, unreported Supreme Court of NSW) Hallmark — Minx Ply Ltd v Ryherczyk [1998] QCA 254 Kelly v Croft Sheetmetal Manufacturing Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 412 Miller v Broadbent (unreported) Platton v WJ VP Ply Ltd (2004) SC 258 Repatriation Commission v Nation (1955) 57 FCR 25
COUNSEL:	GJ Cross for the applicant/plaintiff RM Treston for the respondent/defendant
SOLICITORS:	Hoolihans Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent/defendant