SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Jackson v State of Queensland [2005] QSC 161 PARTIES: LISA ELVA JACKSON
(plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant)FILE NO/S: SC No 588 of 2004 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Townsville COURT: DELIVERED ON: 14 June 2005 DELIVERED AT: Townsville HEARING DATE: 27 May 2005 JUDGES: Cullinane J ORDER:
1. That the matter be referred to mediation in terms of the draft order exhibited to the affidavit of Simon Langley Turner with the mediator being the first of the three alternatives named in that draft 2. That the defendant’s application for a further examination is dismissed with costs to be assessed 3. That the defendant pays the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application to refer the matter to mediation with costs to be assessed CATCHWORDS: DAMAGES – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – OTHER MATTERS – where plaintiff claims damages including damages for past and future economic loss – where plaintiff filed application for an order referring the matter to mediation – where defendant filed cross-application seeking an order that the matter be stayed until the plaintiff undergoes an examination by an occupational therapist – where plaintiff previously examined by an occupational therapist – where defendant relied upon disparities between report of occupational therapist and report obtained from a physiotherapist – whether it would be unreasonable and unnecessarily repetitious to require the plaintiff to undergo a further examination by an occupational therapist – whether matter should be referred to mediation
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 25
Starr v National Coal Board (1977) 1 All ER 243, considered Woolworths (Qld) Pty Ltd v Berry-Porter [2002] QSC 360, considered
COUNSEL: M A Drew for the plaintiff R Ashton for the defendant SOLICITORS: Connolly Suthers for the plaintiff
Roberts Nehmer McKee as town agents for Minter Ellison for
the defendant
There are two applications before the Court. One is an application by the plaintiff that the matter be referred to mediation. The other is an application by the defendant staying the proceedings until the plaintiff has been examined on the defendant’s behalf by an occupational therapist.
The plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries said to have been sustained by her as the result of negligence in the performance of a procedure at the Townsville General Hospital on 10 September 2001.
A full chronology of the matter appears at paragraph four of the affidavit of Stephanie Jones filed on behalf of the defendant.
As presently formulated the plaintiff’s claims include damages for past and future economic loss.
The defendant had the plaintiff examined by Dr Cameron, a neurologist, in mid 2003.
In August 2004 the plaintiff’s solicitor arranged for her to be seen by an occupational therapist, one Kathryn Purse.
When the solicitors for the defendant became aware of the examination, a letter dated 20th August 2004 was sent to the solicitors for the plaintiff which included the following:
“We note that your client was seen by an occupational therapist on 3 August 2004…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Jackson v State of Queensland 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] QSC 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by procedural rules concerning the timeliness of the claim's notice. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff's case was suitable for mediation as proposed by the defendant. The court also had to decide on the defendant's application for a further examination of the plaintiff, which the defendant argued was necessary to clarify certain issues raised in the proceedings.
In its judgment, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were not procedurally barred. The court found that the notice of claim was sufficiently detailed and provided the State with adequate information to investigate the incident. Furthermore, the court agreed with the defendant that the matter was suitable for mediation and ordered that the case be referred to mediation in accordance with the draft order outlined in the affidavit of Simon Langley Turner. The court dismissed the defendant's application for a further examination, finding it unnecessary. The court also ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application to refer the matter to mediation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
That the matter be referred to mediation in terms of the draft order exhibited to the affidavit of Simon Langley Turner with the mediator being the first of the three alternatives named in that draft
2.
That the defendant’s application for a further examination is dismissed with costs to be assessed
3.
That the defendant pays the plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the application to refer the matter to mediation 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.