Hodgson v Broadbent - [2010] QSC 427

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hodgson v Broadbent & Anor [2010] QSC 427

PARTIES:

HODGSON, Stephen John
(applicant/plaintiff)
v
BROADBENT, Michael Russell Mark
(first respondent/first defendant)
AND
ALLAMANDA PRIVATE HOSPITAL PTY LTD
ACN 098 641 564
(second respondent/second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 9313 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 - 9 April 2010

JUDGE:

Atkinson J

ORDER:

That the time limit for the commencement of proceedings in a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff against the first and second defendants be extended to 19 September 2008 pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE CHARACTER – GENERALLY – where applicant claims that he suffered injuries following surgery performed on him by the first respondent at the second respondent hospital – where applicant commenced proceedings beyond the limitation period – where applicant applies to extend the limitation period for the commencement of proceedings – where application is not opposed by the first respondent – where application is opposed by the second respondent on the basis of prejudice – whether the limitation period should be extended

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; 186 CLR 541, applied
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360, cited
Carlowe v Frigmobile P/L [1999] QCA 527, cited
Carter v Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Rockhampton & Ors [2001] QCA 335, cited
HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2009] QCA 168, cited
Queensland v Stephenson [2006] HCA 20; 226 CLR 197, cited
Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2005] QCA 161; [2005] 2 Qd R 549, cited

COUNSEL:

G R Mullins for the applicant
G W Diehm SC, with A Luchich, for the first respondent
J H Dalton SC, with J E FitzGerald, for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the applicant

Flower & Hart Lawyers for the first respondent
Minter Ellison for the second respondent

This is an application made pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (“the Act”) to extend the time within which to institute proceedings for personal injuries to 19 September 2008.

On 19 September 2008 Stephen John Hodgson filed a claim for damages alleging that injuries that arose following his undergoing surgery were caused or contributed to by the negligence and breach of contract of the first defendant, Dr Russell Broadbent, and the second defendant, the Allamanda Private Hospital (“the hospital”).

However, s 11(1) of the Act precludes the bringing of an action for damages for personal…

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 Hodgson v Broadbent 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: [2010] QSC 427
Decision Date: 18 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Hodgson v Broadbent, the plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered as a result of surgery performed by the first defendant at the hospital operated by the second defendant. The plaintiff initiated proceedings outside the statutory limitation period, prompting an application under section 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 to extend the time limit for commencing the action. The first defendant did not oppose the extension, but the second defendant opposed it, asserting that it would be prejudiced by the extension.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the limitation period should be extended despite the opposition from the second defendant. The court examined the circumstances under which the limitation period could be extended and whether the plaintiff had a valid reason for the delay in initiating the proceedings. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the second defendant if the extension were granted.

The court found that the plaintiff had a credible claim for personal injuries and that the delay in initiating proceedings was due to factors beyond the plaintiff's control. The court determined that the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts of a decisive character within the meaning of section 31(2) of the Act at the appropriate time. The court concluded that the prejudice to the second defendant, while not insubstantial, was not so significant as to outweigh the need to ensure that the plaintiff's claim was not barred by the limitation period. Consequently, the court granted the extension of the limitation period.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the time limit for the commencement of proceedings in a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff against the first and second defendants be extended to 19 September 2008. This decision underscores the court's willingness to extend limitation periods in appropriate circumstances, balancing the interests of the parties involved.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the time limit for the commencement of proceedings in a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff against the first and second defendants be extended to 19 September 2008 pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

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:	Hodgson v Broadbent & Anor [2010] QSC 427
PARTIES:	HODGSON, Stephen John (applicant/plaintiff) v BROADBENT, Michael Russell Mark (first respondent/first defendant) AND ALLAMANDA PRIVATE HOSPITAL PTY LTD ACN 098 641 564 (second respondent/second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 9313 of 2008
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 - 9 April 2010
JUDGE:	Atkinson J
ORDER:	That the time limit for the commencement of proceedings in a claim for damages for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff against the first and second defendants be extended to 19 September 2008 pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE CHARACTER – GENERALLY – where applicant claims that he suffered injuries following surgery performed on him by the first respondent at the second respondent hospital – where applicant commenced proceedings beyond the limitation period – where applicant applies to extend the limitation period for the commencement of proceedings – where application is not opposed by the first respondent – where application is opposed by the second respondent on the basis of prejudice – whether the limitation period should be extended Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; 186 CLR 541, applied Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360, cited Carlowe v Frigmobile P/L [1999] QCA 527, cited Carter v Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Rockhampton & Ors [2001] QCA 335, cited HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2009] QCA 168, cited Queensland v Stephenson [2006] HCA 20; 226 CLR 197, cited Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Limited [2005] QCA 161; [2005] 2 Qd R 549, cited
COUNSEL:	G R Mullins for the applicant G W Diehm SC, with A Luchich, for the first respondent J H Dalton SC, with J E FitzGerald, for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the applicant Flower & Hart Lawyers for the first respondent Minter Ellison for the second respondent