M & J Rawlings Builders And Contractors v Rawlings

The case of M & J Rawlings Builders And Contractors v Rawlings involved a dispute concerning workers' compensation and the right to bring common law proceedings for a serious injury sustained by an employee before November 1997. The plaintiff, who was also the defendant’s employee, claimed that he suffered from severe mental or permanent severe behavioural disturbance or disorder following an accident. The legal issue at the core of the case was whether the plaintiff's application for leave to bring common law proceedings should be granted, given the statutory requirement that such applications must be made within three years of the incapacity becoming known. The onus of proving this was placed on the plaintiff, and the court had to determine if the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated his lack of subjective knowledge of facts that would constitute a serious injury, despite the mental healthcare specialists' failure to diagnose his condition.

The Court of Appeal considered the onus of proof in this context, examining whether the plaintiff could establish that he did not know, and could not reasonably have known, the facts that constituted a serious injury. The court followed the precedent set in Paget v JLT Workers Compensation Services Pty Ltd, where it was held that the onus is discharged if the plaintiff proves the absence of subjective knowledge. The court distinguished the decision in R v McNeil, where the onus was placed on the defendant, and disapproved the approach taken in Herschberg & Anor v Mula, where the onus was on the plaintiff to prove knowledge. The court also considered the statutory provisions under the Accident Compensation Act 1985, specifically sections 135A(4)(b) and 135AC(b), to frame its decision.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff had discharged the onus of proof by demonstrating the absence of subjective knowledge of his condition. Given the failure of mental healthcare specialists to diagnose the plaintiff's condition, the court found that it was reasonable for the plaintiff to not know of the injury. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower court's decision that the plaintiff's application for leave to bring common law proceedings was valid. The final order of the Court of Appeal was to dismiss the appeal.