Machan v Comalco Aluminium Ltd - [1995] QCA 372

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 177 of 1994

Brisbane

[Machan v. Comalco Aluminium Ltd]

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL WILLIAM MACHAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LTD

(Defendant) Appellant
McPherson JA
Moynihan J
Ambrose J

Judgment delivered 18/08/1995

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; all concurring as to the orders to be made.

APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL LAW - Limitation of actions - appeal against extension of time - when conflicting evidence was attained which would justify a reasonable person obtaining legal advice.
Wood v. Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd (1994) 2 Qd R 431.
Counsel:	Mr J. Clifford Q.C. for the appellant. Mr S. Jones Q.C. for the respondent.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 372
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 177 of 1994

Brisbane

Before

McPherson J.A.
Moynihan J.
Ambrose J.

[Machan v. Comalco Aluminium Ltd.]

BETWEEN

MICHAEL WILLIAM MACHAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered the 18th day of August 1995

I have had the advantage of reading the reasons of Ambrose J., with which I agree.

It is interesting to compare the present appeal with the
decision of this Court in Duke v. Humes Limited (App. 148/1994

Nov. 18, 1994), which involved an apparently similar industrial injury, which, like this, resulted in a successful application to extend time under the Limitation of Actions Act

It is not, of course, permissible to refer to matters
proved in one case as if they were also established in

another. It is, however, not illegitimate to derive from Duke

v. Humes Limited the information that the aetiology of the

condition of which the respondent here complains is something that was not generally recognised among medical practitioners and experts in the field in Australia or other English- speaking countries until quite recently. It has, however, been known and understood in Germany, Russia and elsewhere for many years.

Strikingly, in Duke's case and this, the revelation came in each instance when the applicant worker consulted Dr Grosser, who presumably has access to foreign language medical journals that were not available to many of his colleagues in this country or elsewhere in the English-speaking world. The fund of local expert knowledge has thus been expanded by information which, it is scarcely surprisingly to discover, the respondent here knew nothing about and of which, until he saw Dr Grosser, he had not previously been advised by those he consulted.

It is plainly desirable that information on the subject be more widely disseminated among experts in this field.

The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	Appeal No. 177 of 1994
Brisbane
Before McPherson J.A.

Moynihan J. Ambrose J.

[Machan v. Comalco Aluminium Ltd.]

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL WILLIAM MACHAN

(Plaintiff) Respondent

AND:

COMALCO ALUMINIUM LTD.

(Defendant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MOYNIHAN J.

Judgment delivered 18/08/1995

I have read the reasons for judgment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Machan v Comalco Aluminium Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] QCA 372
Decision Date: 18/08/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Machan v Comalco Aluminium Ltd, the dispute before the court involved the limitation of actions. The plaintiff, Machan, sought to appeal a decision made by the primary judge to extend the time limit for initiating legal proceedings against Comalco Aluminium Ltd. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether conflicting evidence, which only became available after the original time limit had expired, was sufficient to justify a reasonable person in obtaining legal advice and subsequently initiating proceedings.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate standard of evidence required to warrant a reasonable person seeking legal counsel in circumstances where the available evidence is in conflict. The court had to consider the extent to which conflicting evidence could delay the running of the limitation period. The primary consideration was whether the conflict in evidence was such that it would lead a reasonable person to seek legal advice, thereby triggering the limitation period.

The court found that the conflicting evidence presented a genuine dispute that would warrant a reasonable person obtaining legal advice. This, in turn, justified an extension of the time limit for initiating legal proceedings. The court held that when there is conflicting evidence, a reasonable person would be compelled to seek legal advice to properly evaluate their rights and obligations. Consequently, the court granted the appeal and upheld the primary judge's decision to extend the time limit. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that the limitation period does not unfairly prejudice a party who is unaware of critical evidence until after the original time limit has expired.

Orders