Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2019] QSC 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland [2019] QSC 11

PARTIES:

MICHAEL NEIL FERRIER

(applicant)

v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 76 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON:

31 January 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2018

JUDGE:

Crow J

ORDER:

1. The period of limitation for the action in respect of personal injury suffered by the applicant arising from an incident in the course of his employment on 31 July 2010 be extended so that it expires up to and including 60 days from the date the applicant complies with s 295 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003;

2.   The respondent file and serve written submissions as to costs within 7 days hereof and the applicant file and serve written submissions in reply within 3 days’ receipt of the respondent’s written submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH DISCRETION EXERCISED - where applicant alleges he suffered an injury during the course of employment - where the applicant wishes to pursue a claim for damages against the respondents – where the limitation period for the claim has expired – whether the newly learned fact had the necessary quality of decisiveness - whether the applicant was in possession of sufficient information before the critical dates – whether the respondents would suffer prejudice at trial – whether time should be extended.

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 30, s 31(2)
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 295

Moriarty v Sunbeam Corp Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd (1990) 2 Qd R 306
Castlemaine Perkins Ltd v McPhee [1979] Qd R 469
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210
Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431
Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Pryszlak [2018] QCA 157
Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QCA 216
Baillie v Creber & Anor [2010] QSC 52
R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510
Ballingall v WorkCover Queensland & Ors [2017] QSC 133

COUNSEL:

C Heyworth-Smith QC for the applicant

A Mellick for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Macrossan & Amiet for the applicant

BT Lawyers for the respondent

Background Facts

  1. Michael Neil Ferrier applies for an order pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) extending the period of limitation for an action for personal injury up to and including 60 days from the date upon which Mr Ferrier complies with s 295 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003.

  2. Mr Ferrier is currently 29 years of age having been born on 18 March 1989. Mr Ferrier left school after completing Year 10 in 2005 and then attended Mackay…

Continue reading Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland [2019] QSC 11
Case
[2019] QSC 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ferrier v WorkCover Queensland, the applicant sought to extend the limitation period for a claim related to personal injuries sustained during his employment on 31 July 2010. The application was brought before the court after the statutory limitation period had expired, and the applicant wished to pursue a claim for damages against the respondents. The primary legal issue was whether the applicant's newly learned facts justified an extension of the limitation period, and if so, whether the exercise of such discretion would be appropriate in this case.

The court considered whether the applicant had the necessary quality of decisiveness in the newly learned facts, and if the applicant was in possession of sufficient information before the critical dates. Additionally, the court examined whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the limitation period were extended. The court found that the applicant's newly learned facts did possess the required quality of decisiveness and that the applicant had not been in possession of sufficient information before the critical dates. Furthermore, the court determined that the respondents would not suffer prejudice at trial if the limitation period were extended.

Based on these findings, the court granted the applicant's application for an extension of the limitation period for the action in respect of the personal injury. The period of limitation was extended so that it expired up to and including 60 days from the date the applicant complied with section 295 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003. The respondents were ordered to file and serve written submissions on costs within 7 days of the decision, with the applicant to file and serve written submissions in reply within 3 days of receipt of the respondents' written submissions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The period of limitation for the action in respect of personal injury suffered by the applicant arising from an incident in the course of his employment on 31 July 2010 be extended so that it expires up to and including 60 days from the date the applicant complies with s 295 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003;

2. The respondent file and serve written submissions as to costs within 7 days hereof and the applicant file and serve written submissions in reply within 3 days’ receipt of the respondent’s written submissions.

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.