SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: King v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [2000] QSC 342 PARTIES: DAVID JAMES KING
(plaintiff/applicant)
v
THE QUEENSLAND CORRECTIVE SERVICES COMMISSION
(defendant/respondent)FILE NO: S5521 of 1997 DIVISION: Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 5 October 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 25 August 2000 JUDGE: Mullins J ORDER: That the period of limitation for this action be extended, so that it expires on 23 June 1997. CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – PERSONAL INJURIES – EXTENSION OF TIME – whether a material fact of a decisive character was not within means of knowledge – Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s30, s31.
Limitation of Actions Act 1974
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 QdR 306
Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited [1998] QCA 298
Watters v Queensland Rail [2000] QCA 51COUNSEL: G R Mullins for the applicant
R J Douglas SC for the respondentSOLICITORS: Attwood Marshall for the applicant
Crown Law for the respondent
MULLINS J: This is an application by the plaintiff (“applicant”) pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (“Act”) to extend the period of limitation for this action commenced by writ of summons filed on 23 June 1997 against his employer The Queensland Corrective Services Commission (“respondent”) as defendant. The application is opposed.
The applicant was involved in an incident on 12 June 1992 which occurred during the course of employment with the respondent. The applicant was a correctional officer who conveyed Harold John McSweeney, an inmate of Brisbane Correctional Centre and classified as a high security prisoner, to the cells of the Law Courts in company with other inmates in a prison van supplied by the respondent. Upon arrival at the cells, McSweeney was removed from the van and taken to cell number 8 by the applicant.
The prisoner produced a replica firearm from his person, threatened and assaulted the applicant and escaped from the cells. The applicant and fellow correctional officers pursued McSweeney to the City Plaza bus stop at the corner of George and Adelaide Streets, Brisbane where McSweeney boarded a Brisbane passenger bus and by placing the replica firearm to the head of the bus driver, attempted to abscond. The applicant's fellow correctional officer Raymond Michael Coker shot McSweeney with his service revolver inflicting fatal head injuries in the immediate presence of the applicant.
The only debriefing which the applicant received through his employer after the incident was a group debriefing. It does not appear that the applicant had any time off work following the incident.
Mr Coker suicided by gunshot on 27 January 1994. This caused great distress to the applicant.
At the time of the incident the applicant was married with two young children. After Mr Coker’s death, the applicant’s wife insisted that he consult a doctor. The applicant consulted general medical practitioner Dr Denise King who referred him to psychiatrist, Dr Malcolm Foxcroft.
The applicant first attended on Dr Foxcroft on 24 May 1994. He presented with symptoms of severe anxiety,…
Continue reading King v Queensland Corrective Services Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- King v Queensland Corrective Services Commission [2000] QSC 342
- Case
- [2000] QSC 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the court should grant an extension of time under section 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, which allows for an extension if a material fact of a decisive character was not within the knowledge of the plaintiff at the time the cause of action accrued. The court had to consider whether the plaintiff could demonstrate that he was unaware of the full extent of his injuries or the identity of the defendants at the relevant time, which would justify the extension of time.
The court found that the plaintiff was unaware of the full extent of his injuries and the identity of the defendants at the time the cause of action accrued. The court held that these were material facts of a decisive character that were not within the plaintiff's knowledge at the relevant time. The court emphasised that the plaintiff had exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the cause of action and that the extension was warranted in the circumstances. Accordingly, the court ordered that the limitation period for the plaintiff's action be extended so that it expired on 23 June 1997.
The final orders of the court were that the period of limitation for the plaintiff's action be extended, so that it expired on 23 June 1997. This allowed the plaintiff to bring his claim within the extended timeframe, ensuring that he could seek redress for the personal injuries sustained during his employment.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the period of limitation for this action be extended, so that it expires on 23 June 1997.
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.