Lenoy v Smith

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.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lenoy v Smith, the respondent, Lenoy, was convicted for unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm to the applicant, Smith. Smith subsequently applied for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) after the statutory limitation period had expired. The application was filed outside the prescribed time, but Lenoy argued that Smith's lack of awareness of his ability to seek compensation should be considered a material factor of a decisive character, warranting an extension of the limitation period. Smith also contended that his unawareness of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) diagnosis until after the limitation period had expired should similarly be considered a material factor.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the limitation period in actions to recover money recoverable by virtue of an enactment, specifically under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The court had to determine whether Smith's lack of awareness of his right to compensation, due to his residence in a remote community, and his unawareness of his PTSD diagnosis until after the limitation period expired, constituted material factors of a decisive character. This required a careful analysis of the statutory provisions and the relevant case law on the extension of limitation periods.

The court examined the statutory provisions and considered relevant precedents. It held that Smith's lack of awareness of his right to compensation and his PTSD diagnosis did not constitute material factors of a decisive character sufficient to extend the limitation period. The court reasoned that the limitation period was a statutory requirement designed to promote certainty and finality in legal proceedings. While the court acknowledged the hardships faced by Smith, it found that these did not meet the stringent criteria necessary to justify an extension of the limitation period. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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