Maconachie v Woolworths Limited - [2005] QSC 249

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Maconachie v Woolworths Limited & Anor [2005] QSC 249

PARTIES:

LEONIE MACONACHIE
(Applicant)
v
WOOLWORTHS LIMITED
(ACN 000 014 675)
(First Respondent)
WOOLWORTHS (QLD) LTD
(ACN 000 034 819)
(Second Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

420 of 2003

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

9 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2005

JUDGE:

Jones J

ORDER:

1. The application to extend time to 9 September 2003 is allowed.

2. The costs of and incidental to this application are to be assessed on the standard basis, as costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY – PERSONAL INJURY CASES – application for order pursuant to s31 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 that the period of limitation be extended – applicant suffered injury while working in respondents’ store – applicant undertook surgery to ameliorate injury – applicant awaited outcome of surgery before making claim – whether negative outcome of surgery and poor prognosis following surgery constitutes a material fact of a decisive character

COUNSEL:

Mr M Glenn for the applicant

Mr G Houston for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The Law Office for the applicant

Bolton Cleary & Kern Lawyers for the respondents

On 9 September 2003 the applicant commenced proceedings against the respondents, her employer, claiming damages for personal injuries sustained during the course of her employment between late 1990 and October 2003. She seeks by this application to extend the time within which to commence the proceedings pursuant to the provisions of s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (“the Act”).

The respondents do not contest that the applicant suffered work-related injuries during the course of her employment, nor do they suggest that they would suffer any prejudice by the granting of the extension sought. The respondents also acknowledge that there is evidence to establish a right of action as required by s 31(2)(b) of the Act, except for any injury sustained between 1 July – 20 December 2001. That exception is raised because the applicant has not complied with the various procedural requirements of the amending Act which came into force on 1 July 2001. This reservation by the respondent is of small moment because for all but three months of that period the plaintiff was not working so as to undergo treatment for her injured wrists.

The only issue which falls for determination is the time at which a material fact of a decisive character came to the knowledge of the applicant. The applicant contends that this was reached only after the results of surgery undertaken on 23 August 2002. The respondent contends that the material facts were known by May 2002 when the applicant received an assessment from Dr Pozzi, orthopaedic surgeon, as to the prospects of success of that surgery. For the plaintiff to succeed a decisive fact must have come to her knowledge only after 9 September 2002.

Background facts

The plaintiff first suffered…

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 Maconachie v Woolworths Limited 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: [2005] QSC 249
Decision Date: 9 August 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maconachie v Woolworths Limited involved the applicant, who had suffered an injury while working in a store operated by the respondent. The applicant had undergone surgery in an effort to ameliorate the injury but awaited the outcome of the surgery before deciding to make a claim against the respondent. The court was tasked with deciding whether the negative outcome of the surgery, along with the poor prognosis following the surgery, constituted a material fact of a decisive character that could warrant an extension of the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's decision to wait for the outcome of the surgery before lodging a claim was reasonable and justified, given the subsequent poor prognosis and negative outcome of the surgery. The court had to determine whether these circumstances were significant enough to warrant an extension of the limitation period.

The court considered the principles of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, which provides for the extension of the limitation period in personal injury cases if the applicant can demonstrate that they did not know, and could not with reasonable diligence have known, of the material facts of a decisive character at the time the cause of action accrued. The court acknowledged that the applicant's decision to wait for the outcome of the surgery before making a claim was a reasonable course of action, given the uncertainty surrounding the prognosis and the potential for improvement post-surgery. The court found that the negative outcome of the surgery and the poor prognosis following the surgery were indeed material facts of a decisive character that the applicant could not have known at the time the cause of action accrued. As a result, the court granted the applicant's application to extend the limitation period, allowing the claim to proceed. The court also ordered that the costs of and incidental to this application were to be assessed on the standard basis, as costs in the cause.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend time to 9 September 2003 is allowed.

2. The costs of and incidental to this application are to be assessed on the standard basis, as costs in the cause.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Maconachie v Woolworths Limited & Anor [2005] QSC 249
PARTIES:	LEONIE MACONACHIE (Applicant) v WOOLWORTHS LIMITED (ACN 000 014 675) (First Respondent) WOOLWORTHS (QLD) LTD (ACN 000 034 819) (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	420 of 2003
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	9 August 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	4 August 2005
JUDGE:	Jones J
ORDER:	1. The application to extend time to 9 September 2003 is allowed. 2. The costs of and incidental to this application are to be assessed on the standard basis, as costs in the cause.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS GENERALLY – PERSONAL INJURY CASES – application for order pursuant to s31 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 that the period of limitation be extended – applicant suffered injury while working in respondents’ store – applicant undertook surgery to ameliorate injury – applicant awaited outcome of surgery before making claim – whether negative outcome of surgery and poor prognosis following surgery constitutes a material fact of a decisive character
COUNSEL:	Mr M Glenn for the applicant Mr G Houston for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The Law Office for the applicant Bolton Cleary & Kern Lawyers for the respondents