Jackson v Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd - [2005] QSC 374

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jackson v Claric Ninety Five P/L [2005] QSC 374
PARTIES: PAUL DAVID JACKSON
(applicant)
v
CLARIC NINETY FIVE PTY LTD
(respondent)
FILE NO: 7134 of 2005
DIVISION: Trial
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 15 December 2005
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 30 November 2005
JUDGE: Douglas J
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE
BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION
IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE
OF MATERIAL FACTS – WHETHER REASONABLE
STEPS TAKEN TO ASCERTAIN FACTS – where applicant
injured on 25 October 1993 – where applicant seeking
extension of limitation period to 7 October 2005 – where
applicant’s back injury occurred at work – where
contemporaneous evidence has diminished – where applicant
was initially refused worker’s compensation – where
applicant appealed against that refusal claiming that “I am at
present able to … work full time at my workplace, but that
may not be possible if immediate medical attention is not
received” – where applicant was diagnosed with “left sided
posterolateral disc protrusion in the disk between the lower
most lumbar vertebral body and the transitional vertebra
which on … is causing quite marked compression of the
theca and also of the left L5 nerve root” – where applicant
claims he was not aware of the extent of his injuries due to
this diagnosis not being explained to him in terms he
understood until recently – whether the applicant’s alleged
failure to comprehend the seriousness of his injuries
constituted a lack of knowledge on his behalf of a material
fact
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 30(1)(c)(ii), s 31
Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 Qd R 301, cited
Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485, cited
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996)
186 CLR 541, followed
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R
306, cited
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd (CA No 37 of 1992; 9 June 1993,
unreported, BC 9303277), considered
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325,
cited
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, compared
Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 483,
distinguished
Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland
[1983] 2 Qd R 19, distinguished
Wrightson v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 367, applied
COUNSEL: R J Oliver for the applicant
D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Walker Pender for the applicant
Tresscox for the respondent

Douglas J: The plaintiff in this action was injured on 25 October 1993, having been born on 2 October 1973. His application is for an extension of the period of limitation in respect of his claim to 7 October 2005, pursuant to s 30 and s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
Background Facts
The plaintiff’s case is that, on the day when he suffered his injury, he was working as an apprentice motor…

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 Jackson v Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jackson v Claric Ninety Five P/L [2005] QSC 374
Case: [2005] QSC 374
Decision Date: 15 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jackson v Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Jackson, sought to extend the limitation period for a personal injury claim against the defendant, Claric Ninety Five Pty Ltd, which arose from an incident on 25 October 1993. Jackson argued that the original limitation period should be extended to 7 October 2005, citing reasons such as diminished contemporaneous evidence and initial refusal of worker’s compensation. The primary legal issues centred on whether the court should postpone the bar of the limitation period and whether Jackson had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts of his injury.

The court examined the criteria for extending the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act. It considered whether Jackson had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts of his injury and if he had knowledge of these facts within the original limitation period. The court also evaluated the reasonableness of Jackson’s efforts to gather evidence and the impact of diminished evidence on his ability to pursue the claim within the statutory timeframe. Ultimately, the court found that Jackson had not demonstrated that he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts of his injury within the original limitation period. Consequently, the application for an extension was dismissed.

The reasoning of the court was based on the plaintiff's failure to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the facts of his injury within the original limitation period. The court held that the plaintiff’s initial refusal of worker’s compensation and the subsequent loss of contemporaneous evidence did not sufficiently justify an extension of the limitation period. The court emphasised the importance of claimants taking reasonable steps to ascertain the material facts of their injuries within the statutory timeframe, especially in the context of personal injury claims. The final orders of the court dismissed the application for an extension of the limitation period, thereby upholding the original limitation period for the claim.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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:	Jackson v Claric Ninety Five P/L [2005] QSC 374
PARTIES:	PAUL DAVID JACKSON (applicant) v CLARIC NINETY FIVE PTY LTD (respondent)
FILE NO:	7134 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 December 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 November 2005
JUDGE:	Douglas J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – WHETHER REASONABLE STEPS TAKEN TO ASCERTAIN FACTS – where applicant injured on 25 October 1993 – where applicant seeking extension of limitation period to 7 October 2005 – where applicant’s back injury occurred at work – where contemporaneous evidence has diminished – where applicant was initially refused worker’s compensation – where applicant appealed against that refusal claiming that “I am at present able to … work full time at my workplace, but that may not be possible if immediate medical attention is not received” – where applicant was diagnosed with “left sided posterolateral disc protrusion in the disk between the lower most lumbar vertebral body and the transitional vertebra which on … is causing quite marked compression of the theca and also of the left L5 nerve root” – where applicant claims he was not aware of the extent of his injuries due to this diagnosis not being explained to him in terms he understood until recently – whether the applicant’s alleged failure to comprehend the seriousness of his injuries constituted a lack of knowledge on his behalf of a material fact Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 30(1)(c)(ii), s 31
Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 Qd R 301, cited Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485, cited Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, followed Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306, cited Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd (CA No 37 of 1992; 9 June 1993, unreported, BC 9303277), considered Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, compared Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 483, distinguished Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, distinguished Wrightson v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 367, applied
COUNSEL:	R J Oliver for the applicant D V C McMeekin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Walker Pender for the applicant Tresscox for the respondent