Feher v Commonwealth; Feher v WorkCover Queensland

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Feher v Commonwealth; Feher v WorkCover Queensland    [2016] QDC 275

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY MARTIN FEHER

(applicant/plaintiff)

v

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

(respondent/defendant)

DC No 2717 of 2014

TIMOTHY MARTIN FEHER

(applicant/plaintiff)

v

WORKCOVER QUEESLAND

(respondent/defendant)

DC No 141 of 2015

PROCEEDING:

Applications for extension of time pursuant to s 31 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 November 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2016

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDERS:

Matter no. 2717/14

1.   The plaintiff’s application is dismissed

2.   The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

Matter no. 141/15

1.   The plaintiff’s application is dismissed

2.   The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – KNOWLEDGE – REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN TO ASCERTAIN FACTS – where plaintiff slipped on ladder at work in 2006 – where plaintiff diagnosed as having suffered a rupture of the right anterior cruciate ligament – where, prior to surgery, plaintiff informed that typical recovery was between six to nine months – where surgical repair performed – where plaintiff experienced ongoing symptoms in his knee – where plaintiff only saw doctor about persistent symptoms in May 2013 – where plaintiff underwent second arthroscopy in June 2013 – where plaintiff informed, following 2013 arthroscopy, that he may never make full recover – where plaintiff informed there is a chance of developing arthritis in his right knee – where plaintiff claims this was first time he realised he would not make full recovery – whether reasonable for plaintiff to continue to be optimistic about recovery despite persistent symptoms – whether plaintiff was informed of a material fact of decisive nature following arthroscopy in 2013

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – PRINCIPLES ON WHICH DISCRETION IS EXERCISED – where plaintiff injured at work in 2006 – where plaintiff employed by company that has since been deregistered – where employment records of company no longer available – where health and safety procedures of company no longer available – where witnesses cannot provide accurate recollection of events due to passing of time – whether defendants would not be significantly prejudiced by extension of limitation period

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), ss 11, 30, 31
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 43
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 300(2)(b)

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, applied

Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd (No 2) [2008] Qd R 219, cited
Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QCA 216, considered
Hargans v Kemenes & Anor [2011] QCA 251, cited
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, considered

HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2009] QCA 168, cited

Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd…