Finn v Queensland Ambulance Service - [2000] QSC 472

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Finn v Queensland Ambulance Service [2000] QSC 472

PARTIES: ALLAN FRANCIS FINN
(Applicant)
v
QUEENSLAND AMBULANCE SERVICE
(Respondent)

FILE NO: S378 of 2000

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 15 December 2000

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATES: 17 November 2000

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDER:The period of limitation within which the plaintiff is to commence an action for damages for negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty with respect to the injury described as major depression and atypical post traumatic stress disorder arising out of his employment by the defendant be extended to 21 August 2000.
CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS-PERSONAL INJURIES- EXTENSION OF TIME – PSYCHIATRIC INJURY - Application for extension of time to bring action – whether contents of a report regarding the applicant’s condition were within his means of knowledge before 21 August 2000 – availability of evidence to prove causative link between the management practices of the respondent and the injury suffered by applicant – whether these facts constitute material facts of a decisive character
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s30, s31

Morgan v Tame [2000] NSWCA 121, referred to
Midwest Radio Ltd v Arnold (QCA, App 4010 of 1998 – 12 February 1999), discussed
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383, referred to
Woodrow v Commonwealth of Australia (1993) 54 FCR 52, referred to
Wood v Glaxco Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431, followed
Moriaty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325, followed
Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 Qd R 301, followed Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426, referred to
Dick v University of Queensland [1999] QCA 474, applied

COUNSEL:Mr McMeekin SC for the applicant
Mr Hoare for the respondent

SOLICITORS: John Murphy & Co. for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the respondent

DUTNEY, J: Mr Finn, the applicant, was appointed the officer-in-charge of the Queensland Ambulance at Duaringa on 16 December 1990. He had been an officer with Queensland Ambulance since August 1980. In the intervening 10 years Mr Finn worked at Gatton (a five man station) for 7 years and at Home Hill (a four man station) for 3 years. At Home Hill Mr Finn was promoted to a senior ambulance officer. He received a number of continuous and meritorious service awards and a number of written commendations from the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS).

By 1990 Mr Finn had acquired considerable experience and had had no adverse reports.

Duaringa was a one man ambulance station. Mr Finn says that he was aware that the previous officer had resigned in circumstances where some of the Duaringa community had made complaints against him to the effect that he was not a competent officer and was not providing a proper service. Mr Finn does not disclose the origin of his “awareness”. Mr Walz, the regional director based in Rockhampton has no knowledge of any such complaints against Mr Finn’s predecessor in Rockhampton.

Mr Finn commenced…

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 Finn v Queensland Ambulance Service 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: [2000] QSC 472
Decision Date: 15/12/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of Queensland heard the case of Finn v Queensland Ambulance Service, where Allan Francis Finn sought an extension of the limitation period to bring a claim for damages for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of statutory duty in relation to his employment by the Queensland Ambulance Service. The primary dispute centred around Finn's claims that his injuries, diagnosed as major depression and atypical post-traumatic stress disorder, arose from his employment conditions and the service's management practices. Finn argued that he was not aware of the full extent of his injuries and the causative factors until after the standard limitation period had expired.

The legal issues before the court involved whether certain facts were unknown to Finn until after the limitation period and if these facts were decisive in establishing his right to pursue the claim. Specifically, the court had to consider if the material facts about the nature and extent of Finn's injuries and the employer's breach of duty were unknown to Finn until after the limitation period had lapsed. The statutory provisions under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 guided the court's determination of whether the extension of the limitation period was warranted.

Dutney J found that Finn had not known the full extent of his injuries and the employer's breach of duty until after the limitation period had expired. The court held that the facts about Finn's unfitness to return to work and the evidence that the Queensland Ambulance Service's management practices were below acceptable standards were decisive. Dutney J concluded that these facts were not within Finn's means of knowledge before 21 August 1999 and were of a decisive nature. The court granted the application for an extension of the limitation period, allowing Finn to commence the action by 21 August 2000.

Orders