Charlton v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2006] QCA 498

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Charlton v WorkCover Qld & Ors [2006] QCA 498

PARTIES:

5834/06

GARY WALTER CHARLTON
(applicant/appellant)
v
PROMINORA PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 050 398 653
(first respondent)
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

5835/06

GARY WALTER CHARLTON
(applicant/appellant)
v
S EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
ACN 093 332 186
(first respondent)
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5834 of 2006
Appeal No 5835 of 2006
SC No 308 of 2005
SC No 51 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

1 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMurdo P and Holmes JA concurring as to the orders made, Williams JA dissenting in part

ORDER:

1.In 5834/06  

Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs

2.In 5835/06  

Appeal allowed, no order as to costsi.    

Order of 20 June 2006 set asideii.   

Order that the limitation period relating to the appellant’s claim be extended until 15 July 2005iii.   

Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time to be assessediv.   

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – INJURY DISEASE OR DISABILITY – AGGRAVATION OF INJURY – where the appellant either developed or aggravated a hernia during his employment with each of the first respondents – this injury required surgical intervention and the appellant’s capacity to work was significantly affected as a result – whether the appellant sustained an ‘injury’ within the meaning of s 34 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) – whether the appellant should have been granted an extension of time in which to bring an action against the first respondents – whether the appellant is now entitled to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injury

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 471B
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31, s 31(2)(a)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act2002 (Qld), s 43
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 34, s 158, s 158(1), s 159, s 161, s 203, s 253(1), s 265, s 266, s 267, s 280, s 305, s 306, s 308, s 488, s 491, s 497, s 499, s 506(2)

Bonser v Melnacis [2000] QCA 13; [2002] 1 Qd R 1, applied
Bridge Shipping Pty Limited v Grand Shipping SA & Anor (1991) 173 CLR 231, cited
Davison & Ors v Queensland [2006] HCA 21; (2006) 80 ALJR 946, considered
Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 226 CLR 197, considered
Reat v University of Queensland [2000] QSC 35; SC No 839 of 2000, 2 March 2000, distinguished
SG v State of Queensland (No 2) [2004] QCA 461; Appeal Nos 6045, 6046, 6047, 6049, 6050 and 6051 of 2004, 3 December 2004, considered

COUNSEL:

R J…

Continue reading Charlton v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Charlton v WorkCover Queensland [2006] QCA 498
Case
[2006] QCA 498
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Charlton, appealed against the decisions of WorkCover Queensland and others regarding his entitlement to workers’ compensation for injuries sustained during his employment. The primary dispute centred on whether Charlton suffered an ‘injury’ as defined by section 34 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) when he developed or aggravated a hernia during his employment, which required surgical intervention and significantly impaired his capacity to work. The court was tasked with determining if Charlton's condition constituted an ‘injury’ within the meaning of the Act, whether an extension of time should be granted for him to bring an action against his employers, and if he was entitled to commence proceedings for damages for personal injury.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the definition of ‘injury’ under the Act and assessing whether the statutory time limit for bringing a claim should be extended in light of the appellant’s circumstances. The court examined whether the hernia was a pre-existing condition that was aggravated by his employment or if it was a new injury sustained during the course of his employment. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant’s delay in bringing the claim was reasonable, given the circumstances of the case.

The court found that Charlton had sustained an ‘injury’ within the meaning of the Act as his hernia was significantly aggravated during employment. The court ruled that the appellant’s claim for damages was not time-barred and granted an extension of time for him to bring his action. The court held that the appellant was entitled to claim damages for personal injury, finding that the delay was justified due to his limited awareness of the extent of his injury at the time. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal in part and allowed it in part, setting aside certain orders and extending the limitation period for the appellant’s claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.In 5834/06

Appeal dismissed, no order as to costs

2.In 5835/06

Appeal allowed, no order as to costsi.

Order of 20 June 2006 set asideii.

Order that the limitation period relating to the appellant’s claim be extended until 15 July 2005iii.

Order that the respondents pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of time to be assessediv.

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.