Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd - [2007] QDC 198

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QDC 198

PARTIES:

MARCIA ELLEN FULLER

applicant/plaintiff

V

BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED

respondent/defendant

FILE NO/S:

BD2773/2006

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

2 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2007

JUDGE:

Rafter SC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Application for extension of the limitation period is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS - whether a material fact of a decisive character came into the applicant’s knowledge after the expiration of the period of limitation – whether the extension of time would prejudice the respondent

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)
Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s31(1)(c), s31(2)

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) CLR 541
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd (1993) QCA 37
Jackson v Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 374
JMC v Moore (2006) QDC 418
Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 80 ALJR 923

COUNSEL:

RAI Myers for the applicant/plaintiff

T Matthews for the respondent/defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff

Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondent/defendant

This is an application for an extension of the limitation period under the Limitations of Actions Act 1974.

On 2 October 2006 the applicant was granted leave to start a proceeding for damages for personal injuries despite non-compliance with the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act of 2002. The proceeding was evidently commenced on 9 October 2006.

The applicant was born on 12 July 1953. The applicant was employed by Ajax Fasteners. The incident the subject of the action occurred on 23 June 2003 while she was rearranging her employer’s stock at the respondent’s Southport store. The applicant’s description of the incident taken from the affidavit of Maria Skordou filed 21 September 2006 at paragraphs 3 and 4 is as follows:

“The applicant alleges that on 23 June 2003 between 10 and 11 am she was working at the respondent’s premises at Olsen Avenue, Southport in the State of Queensland. The applicant, an employee of Nylex (which is the business that subsequently acquired Ajax Fasteners) was rearranging Nylex stock. She was using a type of ladder in the performance of her duties which was the property of the respondent. The applicant was required to stand on a ladder and reach above shoulder height into a shelf which was approximately two metres above floor level and drag five kilogram tubs of nails towards her and place them on the rungs of the ladder before carrying them down to the floor.
The applicant had carried two tubs of nails weighing 10 kilograms in total down the ladder in her left arm cradling them against the left side of her body. The floor area in the vicinity of the shelf was covered in stock. The injury to the applicant’s left shoulder and neck…

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.

Continue reading Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QDC 198
Case: [2007] QDC 198
Decision Date: 2 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd involved a dispute where the applicant sought an extension of the limitation period in relation to a personal injury claim. The applicant, Fuller, sought damages from Bunnings Group Ltd for injuries sustained while using a product supplied by the respondent. The limitation period for such claims had expired, and Fuller applied to the court for an extension based on the argument that she had not become aware of the material facts giving rise to her cause of action until after the limitation period had ended.

The legal issues before the court were whether Fuller's claim for an extension of the limitation period was justified and, if so, whether such an extension would prejudice Bunnings Group Ltd. The court was required to determine whether Fuller had knowledge of the material facts after the expiration of the limitation period and whether granting an extension would unfairly disadvantage Bunnings Group Ltd.

In examining the matter, the court found that Fuller had not demonstrated that a material fact of a decisive character came into her knowledge after the expiration of the limitation period. The court also held that granting an extension would prejudice Bunnings Group Ltd, as it would effectively allow the claim to proceed despite the passage of time, which could impact the respondent's ability to adequately defend itself due to potential loss of evidence and witnesses. Consequently, the court ruled that the application for an extension of the limitation period should be refused, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for extension of the limitation period is refused.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QDC 198
PARTIES:	MARCIA ELLEN FULLER applicant/plaintiff V BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED respondent/defendant
FILE NO/S:	BD2773/2006
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	2 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 February 2007
JUDGE:	Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Application for extension of the limitation period is refused. 2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS - whether a material fact of a decisive character came into the applicant’s knowledge after the expiration of the period of limitation – whether the extension of time would prejudice the respondent Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s31(1)(c), s31(2) Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) CLR 541 Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd (1993) QCA 37 Jackson v Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd [2005] QSC 374 JMC v Moore (2006) QDC 418 Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 80 ALJR 923
COUNSEL:	RAI Myers for the applicant/plaintiff T Matthews for the respondent/defendant
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the applicant/plaintiff Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondent/defendant