Cottee v Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Cottee v Eastern Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 112

PARTIES:

JACINDA COTTEE
(Applicant)

v

EASTERN AUSTRALIA AIRLINES PTY LTD
ABN 77 001 599 024

AND

COBHAM AVIATION SERVICES AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
ABN 34 003 469 574

AND

COBHAM AVIATION SERVICES ENGINEERING PTY LTD
ABN 74 099 287 117

AND

ROLLS-ROYCE DEUTSCHLAND LTD & CO KG
ABN 70 098 164 121

(Respondents)

FILE NO/S:

BD 533/2021

DIVISION:

Applications

DELIVERED ON:

24 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 April 2022

JUDGE:

Barlow QC DCJ

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 31(2) of the LAA, the period of limitation for the commencement of a proceeding by the applicant:

a)  against the second respondent, be extended to 23 September 2022;

b) against the third respondent, be extended to 26 April 2022; and

c)  against the fourth respondent, be extended to 23 April 2022.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - LIMITATION OF PARTICULAR ACTIONS - SIMPLE CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND TORTS - TORT ACTIONS INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES - the applicant had suffered a psychiatric injury as a consequence of a failed aircraft engine in a commercial aircraft on which she was first officer – the applicant sought an extension of time within which to commence proceedings - whether the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to uncover material facts of a decisive nature concerning potential causes of action and defendants - where reasonable steps are determined by reference to what can reasonably be expected from the actual person in the circumstances of the applicant – whether the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate a cause of action against each respondent

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s 30, s 31

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, applied
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476, applied
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, considered
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325, applied
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, applied

COUNSEL:

C Donnan, for the applicant

G O’Driscoll for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents

M Hickey OAM for the 4^th respondent

SOLICITORS:

Slater and Gordon Solicitors for the applicant

Sparke Helmore Lawyers for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondent

HFW Lawyers for the 4^th respondent

Contents

Introduction

Relevant legal principles

The applicant’s contentions

The steps taken by the parties

The Cobham Report

Consideration – material facts not within applicant’s means of knowledge

The material facts

Ms Cottee’s knowledge

Ms Cottee’s circumstances and abilities at relevant times

Ms Cottee’s knowledge

The solicitors’ conduct

Conclusions

Consideration – evidence to establish cause of action?

The Cobham respondents

The master operating agreement

Rolls Royce

The court has jurisdiction

Should the discretion be exercised in the applicant’s favour?

Conclusions

Introduction

1. On 10 March 2018, Ms Cottee was a commercial airline pilot working as First Officer on a Qantaslink flight from Alice Springs to Brisbane, operated by her employer, National Jet Systems Pty Ltd (