Hart v WorkCover Queensland - [2012] QDC 247

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hart v WorkCover Queensland [2012] QDC 247

PARTIES:

PAUL JOSEPH HART
(applicant)

v

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2174/12

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

30/08/12

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15/06/12

JUDGE:

Searles DCJ

ORDER:

PERIOD OF LIMITATION BE EXTENDED BY 1 YEAR TO 4 JANUARY 2013

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Extension of Limitation Period - s 31(2) Limitations of Actions Act 1974 – Right of Action - Material Fact of a Decisive Character

COUNSEL:

Applicant: A. Simpson
Respondent: K. Philips

SOLICITORS:

T Lawyers
Crown Law

By his application dated 31 May 2012 the applicant seeks an order pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 that the end of the limitation period for an action for damages for personal injury suffered by him on or about 4 January 2009 at Centenary State High School be extended to 1 June 2012.

History of the matter

The applicant was born on 3 June 1972. On 31 October 2002 he commenced employment with Education Queensland at Centenary State High School. Since then, but prior to the injury the subject of this application, the applicant suffered two other work related injuries. First occurred on 10 November 2005 when he pulled a neck muscle when lifting a bag of rubbish out of a bin. The second occurred on 27 October 2008 when he sprained his shoulder lifting the lid of an industrial bin. He lodged an application for compensation for each of these injuries on 15 November 2005 and on 31 October 2008 respectively.

On 6 January 2009 the applicant lodged his application for compensation for a neck injury resulting from 4 January 2009. This is the injury which is the subject of this application. On 11 February 2009 the applicant’s employer completed an employer’s report noting an injury of left shoulder sprain suffered in January 2009 and caused by repetitive lifting over a period of time and cleaning of windows. On 23 February 2009 WorkCover advised the employer it had accepted the applicant’s claim for left shoulder strain sustained on 4 January 2009.

In accepting the applicant’s application for compensation, WorkCover considered:

(a) A medical certificate of Dr Claire Jackson dated 6 February 2009 regarding a condition of acute/chronic right shoulder pain which the applicant reported to Dr Jackson was caused by a longstanding work injury from 2006; and

(b) A medical certificate from Dr Raymond Chan dated 11 February 2009 for a sprained left shoulder which the applicant reported to Dr Chan was caused by repetitive lifting/cleaning of windows and wherein it was noted that there had been a similar injury in late 2008.

Pursuant to acceptance of his claim for compensation WorkCover paid medical expenses and weekly benefits to the applicant from 11 February 2009 to 30 June 2009. On 5 May 2009 the applicant was administered a nerve root injection/C6 block by Dr Gatehouse which provided temporary relief, but on 11 May 2009 the applicant advised Dr McCartney…

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 Hart v WorkCover Queensland

Details

AGLC: Hart v WorkCover Queensland [2012] QDC 247
Case: [2012] QDC 247
Decision Date: 30/08/12

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hart v WorkCover Queensland, the applicant sought an extension of the limitation period to pursue a claim against WorkCover Queensland. The dispute centred on the applicant's right to claim under the provisions of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974. The matter was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT). The central legal issue was whether the applicant could be granted an extension of the limitation period under section 31(2) of the Act due to a material fact of a decisive character that had prevented the timely filing of the claim.

The applicant argued that there were circumstances beyond their control which had prevented the timely assertion of their right of action. The QCAT considered whether these circumstances constituted a material fact of a decisive character that justified an extension of the limitation period. The applicant's submissions highlighted that the material fact in question was not known to them until a later date, which prevented them from initiating the claim within the prescribed time. The QCAT found that the material fact did indeed meet the criteria for an extension under section 31(2) of the Act, as it was decisive in preventing the timely assertion of the right of action.

Consequently, the QCAT granted the application for an extension of the limitation period. The tribunal determined that the applicant's right of action was hindered by a material fact of a decisive character, which warranted the extension of the limitation period by one year. The tribunal extended the limitation period to 4 January 2013, allowing the applicant to pursue their claim against WorkCover Queensland.

Orders

Orders of the court

PERIOD OF LIMITATION BE EXTENDED BY 1 YEAR TO 4 JANUARY 2013

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:	Hart v WorkCover Queensland [2012] QDC 247
PARTIES:	PAUL JOSEPH HART (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2174/12
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	30/08/12
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15/06/12
JUDGE:	Searles DCJ
ORDER:	PERIOD OF LIMITATION BE EXTENDED BY 1 YEAR TO 4 JANUARY 2013
CATCHWORDS:	Application – Extension of Limitation Period - s 31(2) Limitations of Actions Act 1974 – Right of Action - Material Fact of a Decisive Character
COUNSEL:	Applicant: A. Simpson Respondent: K. Philips
SOLICITORS:	T Lawyers Crown Law