Hintz v WorkCover Qld

[2006] QSC 158

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hintz v WorkCover Qld [2006] QSC 158

PARTIES:

JASON LUKE HINTZ
(applicant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S2633 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 June 2006

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS – APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES TO PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION – OTHER CASES – where applicant applies to commence proceedings for injuries suffered at work – where non-compliance with statute and where time limit expired – whether applicant established that a material fact of a decisive character was not within his knowledge until after the expiration of the limitation period

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, 31
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, (Qld), s 253, s 265, s 280, s 305

Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, applied
Seery v Mt Isa Mines Limited (2000) QSC 016, cited
Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, applied
Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, cited

COUNSEL:

P B de Plater for the applicant
M T O’Sullivan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Watling Roche Lawyers for the applicant
MacDonnells for the respondent

Introduction

1. The applicant applies for orders that he be given leave pursuant to s 305 of the now repealed WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) (“the Act”) to commence proceedings for damages for injuries the subject of a notice of claim dated 1 September 2005 despite non-compliance with the requirements of s 280 of the Act. He applies also for an order pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) extending the limitation period until 14 June 2006. The application is opposed, but it is common ground that the provisions of the Act in force as at 31 March 1999 apply.

1. On 31 March 1999, when the applicant was secured to the top of a power pole by a safety harness, a fellow employee caused the power pole to sway. It is alleged that the motion of the pole caused the applicant to suffer a back injury. On 17 January 2001 the applicant applied for compensation for a physical injury caused by the accident (“the Accident”). The application was rejected by the respondent and the applicant appealed to the Industrial Magistrates Court.

1. On 19 March 2002 the applicant applied, pursuant to s 305 of the Act, for leave to bring proceedings against his employer despite non-compliance with the requirements of s 280. The application was refused on 4 April 2002.

1. On 18 September 2002 the Industrial Magistrates Court determined in the applicant’s favour that he had sustained a physical “injury” within the meaning of that term in the Act. The applicant’s solicitors later requested an assessment of the March 1999 injury, including an assessment of an alleged psychiatric injury arising from the Accident. The respondent initially rejected the…