Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors [2007] QDC 056

PARTIES:

JOHN ROBERT GREENHALGH

Applicant

AND

BACAS TRAINING LIMITED

First Respondent

AND

BUNDABERG TOYOTA

Second Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D21/06

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 January 2007

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Extend the limitation period, in respect of a claim against the respondents for damages for injuries received by the applicant on or about 11 October 2001, to 21 June 2007

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – Personal injuries – extension of time – whether material fact decisive – whether within means of knowledge of applicant – discretion.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s 30(1)(b), 31(2).

Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306 – applied.
Dick v The University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476 – cited.
Do Carmo v Ford Excavation Pty Ltd (1984) 145 CLR 234 – cited.
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210 – followed.
JMC v Moore [2006] QDC 418 – followed.
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325 – applied.
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110 – followed.
Pizer v Ansett Australia Ltd [1998] QCA 298 – cited.
State of Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 80 ALJR 923 – applied.
Watters v Queensland Rail [2001] 1 Qd R 448 – applied.

COUNSEL:

R. B. Dickson for the applicant

A. S. Mellick for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Payne Butler and Long for the applicant

McInnes Wilson for the first respondent

Carter Newell for the second respondent

1. This is an application seeking an extension of time under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 in respect of an injury allegedly suffered by the applicant as a result of the negligence of the first or second respondent or both of them on 11 October 2001. The applicant alleges that a material fact of a decisive character was advice that he received in June 2006 from an orthopaedic specialist that he should find alternative employment. The application also seeks leave to commence a proceeding under the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 in respect of the proceeding against the first respondent, and under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in respect of the proceeding against the second respondent. The respondents do not oppose the orders sought for leave to commence proceedings under those Acts, if the extension of the limitation period sought by the applicant is granted, provided that the proceeding is then stayed until the applicant has complied with all pre‑court procedures.

1. In relation to the application under the Limitation of Actions Act, the respondents concede that there is evidence to establish the right of action against each respondent apart from a defence founded on the expiration of the applicable period of limitation.  Accordingly, the question is whether a material fact of a decisive character relating to the right of action was not within the means of knowledge of the applicant…