Hudson v Rammas Pty Limited - [2002] QSC 172

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hudson v Rammas Pty Limited [2002] QSC 172

PARTIES:

RALPH JOSEPH HUDSON
(applicant plaintiff)
v
RAMMAS PTY LIMITED
(respondent defendant)

FILE NO/s

SC No 911 of 2002

Application for Extension of Time

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2002

JUDGE:

de Jersey CJ

ORDER:

The application is refused, with costs to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERONAL ACTIONS - PERSONAL INJURY CASES where proceedings commenced after expiration of the limitations period – where proceedings under WorkCover Queensland Act initially commenced, then ceased – where applicant sought to extend the period within which he could sue for damages and re-open proceedings under the Act.

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

Ipswich City Council v Smith (1997) QCA 263, applied
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, applied
Peabody Resources Limited v Norton (Appeal No 200 of 1994, judgment delivered 16 June 1995, applied
Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, applied

COUNSEL:

K Boulton for the applicant
G Mullins for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn & Cashman for the applicant
Bradley & Co for the respondent

The applicant seeks an order under s 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 extending the period within which he might sue for damages for the alleged negligence of his former employer, the respondent, in respect of injuries he sustained on 4 December 1997 in the course of his employment. The applicant commenced the relevant proceedings on 29 January 2002. The statutory limitation period expired on 4 December 2000.

In para 43 of his affidavit filed on 29 January 2002, the applicant identified the “material fact of a decisive character” on which he relies under s 31(2) as “that (he) would not be able to return to truck driving” because of prescribed narcotic medication, the source of that advice, given in April 2001, being his general practitioner Dr Towner. The applicant consulted a solicitor in relation to a possible claim on 18 May 2001.

The applicant would contend that because that fact was not within his means of knowledge until a date “after the commencement of the year next preceding the expiration of the period of limitation for the action” (s 31(2)(a)), that is, after 4 December 1999, the court may order that the period of limitation be “extended so that it expires at the end of one year after that date”; in other words, in April 2002, which would authorise the proceedings in fact commenced on 29 January 2002.

The respondent conceded that if such an extension is granted, then the applicant should be granted leave, under s 305 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, to start proceedings for damages despite non-compliance with s 280 of that Act. The respondent also conceded “there is evidence to establish the right of action…

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 Hudson v Rammas Pty Limited 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: [2002] QSC 172
Decision Date: 12 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hudson, a former employee, filed an action against Rammas Pty Limited, his former employer, following a work-related injury. The dispute involved whether the court should allow Hudson to extend the period within which he could sue for damages after the limitations period had expired. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The legal issues centred on the interpretation of the statutory provisions governing the limitation of actions in personal injury cases, specifically under the WorkCover Queensland Act and the common law. The court had to determine if Hudson's application to extend the limitation period should be granted, considering the cessation and recommencement of proceedings under the Act.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine the applicability of the limitation period in this context. It held that the statutory provisions did not provide a mechanism for extending the limitation period once it had expired. The court further found that the recommencement of proceedings under the Act did not constitute a fresh cause of action that would allow Hudson to bypass the expired limitation period. The decision was based on the principle that the statutory provisions should be interpreted in a manner consistent with the common law rules regarding limitation periods in personal injury cases.

Given the statutory interpretation and the principle of limitation periods, the court refused Hudson's application. The court determined that the limitation period had expired, and the statutory provisions did not provide a mechanism to extend it. The application was dismissed with costs to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused, with costs to be assessed.

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:	Hudson v Rammas Pty Limited [2002] QSC 172
PARTIES:	RALPH JOSEPH HUDSON (applicant plaintiff) v RAMMAS PTY LIMITED (respondent defendant)
FILE NO/s	SC No 911 of 2002
Application for Extension of Time
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2002
JUDGE:	de Jersey CJ
ORDER:	The application is refused, with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERONAL ACTIONS - PERSONAL INJURY CASES where proceedings commenced after expiration of the limitations period – where proceedings under WorkCover Queensland Act initially commenced, then ceased – where applicant sought to extend the period within which he could sue for damages and re-open proceedings under the Act. Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 31 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) s 280, s 305 Ipswich City Council v Smith (1997) QCA 263, applied Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, applied Peabody Resources Limited v Norton (Appeal No 200 of 1994, judgment delivered 16 June 1995, applied Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, applied
COUNSEL:	K Boulton for the applicant G Mullins for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Maurice Blackburn & Cashman for the applicant Bradley & Co for the respondent