Hintz v WorkCover Queensland

Case [2007] QCA 72

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hintz v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2007] QCA 72

PARTIES:

JASON LUKE HINTZ
(applicant/appellant)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(respondent)
ERGON ENERGY ACN 087 464 062
(respondent/not party to appeal)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6032 of 2006
SC No 2633 of 2002 

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 March 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 February 2007

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR - EXTENSION OF PERIOD - CAUSES OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES - KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS - MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER - where appellant allegedly suffered physical and psychological injury at work - where appellant commenced action for damages outside limitation period - whether appellant could have commenced action prior to receiving damages certificate from WorkCover in respect of psychological injury - whether appellant should be granted an extension of time

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31(2), s 30(1)(b)
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 253, s 261, s 262,
s 264, s 265

Charlton v WorkCover Qld & Ors [2006] QCA 498, Appeal No 5834 of 2006, 1 December 2006, discussed
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited
State of Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 80 ALJR 923, distinguished

Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, cited

COUNSEL:

T Matthews, with P B de Plater, for the appellant
D McMeekin SC, with M T O'Sullivan, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Watling Roche Lawyers Australia for the appellant
MacDonnells Law for the respondent

  1. WILLIAMS JA:  On 17 January 2001 the appellant lodged an application for workers' compensation for a lower back injury said to have been sustained in the course of his employment on 31 March 1999.  Prior to that, on 28 August 2000, he had lodged an application for workers' compensation alleging that he had suffered an injury in the nature of "stress" which had been incurred over a period of time in the course of his employment.  WorkCover rejected the application for compensation for the lower back injury and throughout 2001 and 2002 the appellant pursued appeals consequent upon that rejection.  But on 19 November 2001 WorkCover accepted the claim for "stress" incurred over a period of time and issued a certificate on that date stating that the degree of permanent impairment attributable to that injury was 5%; it was also stated to be a non-certificate injury.  A lump sum offer of compensation for that "stress" was made at that time. 

  1. The appellant's appeals against the rejection of his application for compensation for a lower back injury sustained on 31 March 1999 were ultimately successful.  An Industrial Magistrates Court decision on 18 September 2002 concluded that…

Continue reading Hintz v WorkCover Queensland

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hintz v WorkCover Queensland [2007] QCA 72
Case
[2007] QCA 72
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hintz v WorkCover Queensland involved an appellant who alleged he had suffered physical and psychological injury at work. The appellant commenced an action for damages outside the limitation period, seeking to have the time limit extended. The Queensland Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether the appellant could have reasonably commenced the action before receiving a damages certificate from WorkCover regarding his psychological injury, and if an extension of time should be granted. The court had to consider statutory provisions from the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), as well as relevant case law.

The court examined whether the appellant had knowledge of material facts that would have allowed him to commence the action before receiving the damages certificate. It distinguished State of Queensland v Stephenson and cited Sugden v Crawford and Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd, among others. The court concluded that the appellant did not have knowledge of the material facts of decisive character until he received the damages certificate, and therefore, the limitation period should not have been extended. The court also discussed Charlton v WorkCover Qld & Ors, noting the importance of the appellant having actual knowledge of the material facts at the relevant time.

The Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the trial judge was correct in not extending the limitation period. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of having actual knowledge of material facts before the limitation period commences, and the difficulty of obtaining an extension in such circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal

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.