Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd - [2005] QCA 406

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406

PARTIES:

LEONARD CASTILLON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5559 of 2005
DC No 445 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

4 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 October 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. The declaration made by the learned primary judge is setaside

4. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS - CLAIM AND DELAY IN MAKING CLAIM - EXCUSES FOR DELAY - OTHER REASONABLE CAUSE - where respondent had worked for the appellant as a machine operator for many years - where the respondent had made an application to WorkCover for workers' compensation in December 1999 - where WorkCover issued a notice of assessment describing the date of the injury as 2 December 1999 - where respondent successfully sought leave to bring proceedings on the basis that the limitation period applicable to his claim expired on 2 December 2001 - where the appellant pleaded in its defence to the respondent's claim that the respondent's injury had been sustained at some time prior to 2 December 1999 - where the respondent sought a declaration that he and his solicitors had been entitled to rely on the dates identified by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period applicable to his action and that his action had been validly brought within time - whether s 342 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) allows a claimant to assume that the date of injury identified by WorkCover will be binding in proceedings for damages by an employee against an employer

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 305, s 342(1),
s 342(3)(a), s 342(3)(f)

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld),
s 392

Clarke v Australian Asphalt (Qld) Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 302; SC No 6111 of 2002, 15 September 2004, cited

Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406, cited

Royal British Bank v Turquand (1855) 5 E & B 248; 119 ER 474, considered

COUNSEL:

D V C McMeekin SC for the appellant

G J Cross for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant
Hoolihan's Lawyers for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Keane JA's reasons for granting the application for leave to appeal and allowing the appeal. I also agree with Keane JA's proposed orders.

KEANE JA: On 21 June 2005, the learned primary judge made orders in which, inter alia, he declared:

"That the applicant/plaintiff was entitled to rely on the descriptions in the Notices of Assessment and Damages…

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 & O 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] QCA 406
Decision Date: 4 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Castillon, worked as a machine operator for the respondent, P & O Ports Ltd, for several years. The dispute arose when Castillon sought workers' compensation from WorkCover in December 1999, which identified the date of injury as 2 December 1999. Castillon successfully sought leave to bring proceedings against P & O Ports Ltd, arguing that the limitation period applicable to his claim expired on 2 December 2001. P & O Ports Ltd defended that the injury occurred before 2 December 1999, and thus the claim was time-barred. The central issue before the court was whether Castillon could rely on the date of injury identified by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period applicable to his action against P & O Ports Ltd.

The court examined section 342 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) to determine if it allowed a claimant to assume the date of injury identified by WorkCover would be binding in proceedings against the employer. The court considered relevant case law, including Clarke v Australian Asphalt (Qld) Pty Ltd and the principle from Royal British Bank v Turquand, which holds that a party cannot question the internal processes of a statutory body unless there is evidence of fraud or irregularity. The court concluded that the provision did not confer on Castillon an entitlement to rely on the date identified by WorkCover. Instead, it allowed Castillon to rely on the date in good faith, without the risk of sanction, but did not bind P & O Ports Ltd to that date.

Given the court's findings, the appeal was allowed, and the declaration made by the primary judge was set aside. The court ordered that Castillon was to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision clarified the legal position regarding reliance on WorkCover's assessment of injury dates in workers' compensation claims, emphasising the importance of good faith reliance rather than binding reliance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. The declaration made by the learned primary judge is setaside

4. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis

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 & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406
PARTIES:	LEONARD CASTILLON (plaintiff/respondent) v P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301 (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5559 of 2005 DC No 445 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	4 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 October 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. The declaration made by the learned primary judge is setaside 4. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - PRELIMINARY REQUIREMENTS - CLAIM AND DELAY IN MAKING CLAIM - EXCUSES FOR DELAY - OTHER REASONABLE CAUSE - where respondent had worked for the appellant as a machine operator for many years - where the respondent had made an application to WorkCover for workers' compensation in December 1999 - where WorkCover issued a notice of assessment describing the date of the injury as 2 December 1999 - where respondent successfully sought leave to bring proceedings on the basis that the limitation period applicable to his claim expired on 2 December 2001 - where the appellant pleaded in its defence to the respondent's claim that the respondent's injury had been sustained at some time prior to 2 December 1999 - where the respondent sought a declaration that he and his solicitors had been entitled to rely on the dates identified by WorkCover in calculating the limitation period applicable to his action and that his action had been validly brought within time - whether s 342 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) allows a claimant to assume that the date of injury identified by WorkCover will be binding in proceedings for damages by an employee against an employer WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 305, s 342(1), s 342(3)(a), s 342(3)(f) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 392 Clarke v Australian Asphalt (Qld) Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 302; SC No 6111 of 2002, 15 September 2004, cited Legione v Hateley (1983) 152 CLR 406, cited Royal British Bank v Turquand (1855) 5 E & B 248; 119 ER 474, considered
COUNSEL:	D V C McMeekin SC for the appellant G J Cross for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the appellant Hoolihan's Lawyers for the respondent