Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd - [2009] QSC 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Handover v Consolidated Meat Group P/L [2009] QSC 41

PARTIES:

ROBERT JAMES HANDOVER
(applicant)
v
CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD
(respondent)

FILE NO:

1373/2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

DELIVERED ON:

6 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 January 2009

JUDGE:

Wilson J

ORDER:

That the application be dismissed with no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND/OR THIRD PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – TIME FOR INSTITUTING ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where applicant was allegedly injured in the course of his employment by the respondent – where respondent is a self-insurer under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant failed to commence a proceeding claiming damages before expiration of the applicable limitation period – where applicant purported to invoke s 276 – whether ss 302(1)(a)(ii) or 302(1)(a)(i) was satisfied, allowing the applicant to bring a claim for damages after expiry of the limitation period

Edmunds v D Dunn Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] 2 QdR 128, cited
Narayan v S-Pak Pty Ltd [2003] 2 QdR 387, cited

Price v JF Thompson (Qld) Pty Ltd [1990] 1 QdR 278, cited

Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 482, cited

Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88, cited

WorkCover Queensland v Lucas [2003] 2 QdR 456, cited

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 237, 239, 242, 243, 275, 276, 278, 287, 295, 297, 298, 302

COUNSEL:

RJ Douglas SC for the applicant
KF Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gouldson Legal or the applicant
Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent

Wilson J: The applicant claims to have been injured in the course of his employment by the respondent on 3 February 2005. The respondent is a self insurer under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (“the Act”).

This application arises out of the applicant’s failure to commence a proceeding claiming damages before the expiration of the applicable limitation period.

Section 237 of the Act imposes a general limitation on persons entitled to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker. Relevantly it provides –

“237 General limitation on persons entitled to seek damages
(1) The following are the only persons entitled to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker —

(a) the worker, if the worker—

(i) has received a notice of assessment from the insurer for the injury; or
…

(2) The entitlement of a worker, or a dependant of a deceased worker, to seek damages is subject to the provisions of this chapter.
…
(5) To remove any doubt, it is declared that subsection (1) abolishes any entitlement of a person not mentioned in the subsection to seek damages for an injury sustained by a worker.”

On or about 14 January 2008 the…

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 Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd 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: [2009] QSC 41
Decision Date: 6 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd, the applicant sought to recover damages from the respondent, who was his employer, after an injury allegedly sustained in the course of employment. The respondent, a self-insurer under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), had previously provided the applicant with workers compensation. The dispute centred on the applicant's failure to commence a proceeding claiming damages before the expiration of the applicable limitation period. The applicant attempted to invoke section 276 of the Act to extend the limitation period, arguing that either section 302(1)(a)(ii) or section 302(1)(a)(i) of the Act was satisfied, thereby permitting the claim for damages to be brought after the limitation period had expired.

The court had to determine whether the applicant could successfully invoke section 276 of the Act to extend the limitation period for his damages claim. The court considered the specific provisions of sections 302(1)(a)(ii) and 302(1)(a)(i) of the Act to ascertain whether they applied to the applicant's circumstances, thus allowing for an extension of the limitation period. The court examined the facts and the relevant statutory provisions meticulously to decide if the applicant's situation fell within the exceptions that would permit the late initiation of a damages claim.

After a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and the applicant's circumstances, the court concluded that neither section 302(1)(a)(ii) nor section 302(1)(a)(i) applied to the applicant's case. Consequently, the applicant's attempt to invoke section 276 to extend the limitation period was unsuccessful. The court dismissed the application, ruling that the applicant could not bring a claim for damages after the limitation period had expired. The court made no order as to costs in its final decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the application be dismissed with no order as to 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:	Handover v Consolidated Meat Group P/L [2009] QSC 41
PARTIES:	ROBERT JAMES HANDOVER (applicant) v CONSOLIDATED MEAT GROUP PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO:	1373/2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
DELIVERED ON:	6 March 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 January 2009
JUDGE:	Wilson J
ORDER:	That the application be dismissed with no order as to costs
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS AGAINST EMPLOYER AND/OR THIRD PARTIES AND CONSEQUENCES THEREOF – ACTIONS FOR DAMAGES AGAINST EMPLOYER – TIME FOR INSTITUTING ACTION FOR DAMAGES – where applicant was allegedly injured in the course of his employment by the respondent – where respondent is a self-insurer under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – where applicant failed to commence a proceeding claiming damages before expiration of the applicable limitation period – where applicant purported to invoke s 276 – whether ss 302(1)(a)(ii) or 302(1)(a)(i) was satisfied, allowing the applicant to bring a claim for damages after expiry of the limitation period Edmunds v D Dunn Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] 2 QdR 128, cited Narayan v S-Pak Pty Ltd [2003] 2 QdR 387, cited Price v JF Thompson (Qld) Pty Ltd [1990] 1 QdR 278, cited Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2006] 1 Qd R 482, cited Wilkinson v Stevensam Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 88, cited WorkCover Queensland v Lucas [2003] 2 QdR 456, cited Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), ss 237, 239, 242, 243, 275, 276, 278, 287, 295, 297, 298, 302
COUNSEL:	RJ Douglas SC for the applicant KF Holyoak for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gouldson Legal or the applicant Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent