Lenoy v Smith

[2003] QCA 225

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lenoy v Smith [2003] QCA 225

PARTIES:

JOSEPH LEON NEIL LENOY
(applicant)
v
DAVID SMITH
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10846 of 2002
DC No 162 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

26 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where respondent convicted of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm - where application for compensation pursuant to Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) filed outside limitation period - where applicant lived in remote community - whether applicant's unawareness of ability to seek compensation was a "material factor of a decisive character" for the purposes of extending the limitation period

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where applicant suffered serious injuries as a result of attack - where applicant unaware of post traumatic stress disorder until after expiry of limitation period - whether diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder was a "material factor of a decisive character"

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC, with A J Kimmins, for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
M D Hinson SC, with S A McLeod, for intervenor amicus
    curiae

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey (Samford) for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the intervenor amicus curiae

THE PRESIDENT:  For the reasons given in Watson v Poynter
[2003] QCA 224, Appeal No CA 9291 of 2002, in each of Lenoy v Seaton [2003] QCA 226, Appeal No CA 10847 of 2002, Lenoy v Smith [2003] QCA 225, Appeal No CA 10846 of 2002, and Conway v Ketchup [2003] QCA 228, Appeal No CA 9290 of 2002, the appeal and application for leave to appeal are refused.

‑‑‑‑‑