Looby v State of Queensland

The plaintiff in this case suffered abdominal pains in 1997. The symptoms persisted, and the plaintiff was eventually diagnosed with spondylolisthesis. The plaintiff was given an opinion in 2002 that the initial failure to identify the cause of his symptoms was negligent. The plaintiff brought an action against the state in 2007, but the state sought to have the action dismissed on the grounds that it was brought outside the limitation period. The state argued that the plaintiff should have instituted the action in 2002 when he was given the opinion that the failure to diagnose was negligent.

The court was required to determine whether the opinion given in 2002 should have led a reasonable person to institute proceedings, and therefore whether the limitation period began to run in 2002. The court also had to consider whether evidence about a medical issue could be admitted from a witness with chiropractic and scientific qualifications but no medical qualifications.

The court found that the opinion given in 2002 did not amount to knowledge of the material facts necessary to institute proceedings. The court held that the limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or should have known that the symptoms were caused by negligence. The court also found that evidence from a witness with no medical qualifications was not admissible on a medical issue. The application to extend the limitation period was dismissed.

The court dismissed the application with costs to be assessed. The court held that the plaintiff did not have sufficient knowledge of the material facts to institute proceedings in 2002, and that the evidence given by the witness with no medical qualifications was inadmissible.