Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd - [2007] QCA 216

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Fuller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2007] QCA 216

PARTIES:

MARCIA ELLEN FULLER
(applicant)
v
BUNNINGS GROUP LTD ACN 008 672 179
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1849 of 2007
DC No 2773 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 May 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Holmes JJA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION – where applicant sustained a workplace injury in June 2003 – where applicant did not lodge an application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) until July 2006 – where applicant sought an extension of the relevant limitation period – where respondent did not receive notice of the injury prior to 15 August 2006 – where trial judge found prejudice had been suffered – whether trial judge misapplied the law to the facts – whether leave should be granted

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES - KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – where applicant submitted that she was unaware of the seriousness of the injury until 2006 and that this accounted for the delay – whether reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the facts

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 18(1)(c), s 43

Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, cited
Jackson v Claric Ninety Five P/L[2005] QSC 374; SC 7134 of 2005, 15 December 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

R A I Myers for the applicant
T Matthews for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of a District Court judge to extend the applicable limitation period with respect to the applicant's claim for damages for negligence against the respondent arising out of an incident which occurred on 23 June 2003. The original application was made pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

The critical chronology is as follows:

(i) 23 June 2003 – alleged incident;

(ii) 17 July 2006 – solicitor retained;

(iii) 21 September 2006 – application filed seeking leave to proceed pursuant to s 18(1)(c) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld);

(iv) 2 October 2006 – order granting leave to start proceedings pursuant to s 18(1)(c)(ii) and s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act on condition that before 10 November 2006 the applicant file an application for an extension…

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] QCA 216
Case: [2007] QCA 216
Decision Date: 13 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Fuller against Bunnings Group Ltd was centred around the applicant's failure to lodge an application for workers' compensation within the statutory time limit. The injury in question occurred in June 2003, but the application was not lodged until July 2006. The applicant sought an extension of the limitation period, arguing that she was unaware of the seriousness of her injury until 2006. The respondent claimed that the applicant had suffered prejudice due to the delay in lodging the application. The trial judge found that prejudice had been suffered and dismissed the application for an extension of time. Fuller sought leave to appeal against this decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had misapplied the law to the facts and whether leave should be granted to appeal against the trial judge's decision. The applicant argued that the trial judge had failed to exercise the appropriate discretion in denying the application for an extension of the limitation period. The applicant also contended that the trial judge had incorrectly assessed the prejudice suffered by the respondent due to the delay in lodging the compensation claim. Additionally, the applicant argued that reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the seriousness of the injury and that the delay was attributable to this lack of knowledge.

The court found that the trial judge had exercised their discretion appropriately and had not misapplied the law to the facts. The court held that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the seriousness of the injury. Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the delay in lodging the application for compensation was due to a lack of knowledge of the seriousness of the injury. The court concluded that the trial judge's finding of prejudice was supported by the evidence and that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and ordered that costs be paid by the applicant. The court found that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion and that there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge's decision. The court also found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support their contention that reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the seriousness of the injury. The court further held that the applicant had not demonstrated that the delay in lodging the application for compensation was due to a lack of knowledge of the seriousness of the injury. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the trial judge's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs

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] QCA 216
PARTIES:	MARCIA ELLEN FULLER (applicant) v BUNNINGS GROUP LTD ACN 008 672 179 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1849 of 2007 DC No 2773 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 May 2007
JUDGES:	Williams and Holmes JJA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURT BELOW – IN GENERAL – FAILURE TO EXERCISE DISCRETION – where applicant sustained a workplace injury in June 2003 – where applicant did not lodge an application for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) until July 2006 – where applicant sought an extension of the relevant limitation period – where respondent did not receive notice of the injury prior to 15 August 2006 – where trial judge found prejudice had been suffered – whether trial judge misapplied the law to the facts – whether leave should be granted LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES - KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – where applicant submitted that she was unaware of the seriousness of the injury until 2006 and that this accounted for the delay – whether reasonable steps were taken to ascertain the facts Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 18(1)(c), s 43 Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, cited Jackson v Claric Ninety Five P/L[2005] QSC 374; SC 7134 of 2005, 15 December 2005, cited
COUNSEL:	R A I Myers for the applicant T Matthews for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Shine Lawyers for the applicant Quinlan Miller & Treston for the respondent