Manning v CSR Limited - [2008] QDC 36

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Manning v CSR Limited [2008] QDC 36

PARTIES:

DANIEL PAUL MANNING  (Applicant)

AND

CSR LIMITED (ABN 90 000 001 276)                  (Respondent)

FILE NOS:

258/07

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore District Court

DELIVERED ON:

7.3.08

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

29.2.08

JUDGE:

Judge J.M. Robertson

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Limitation of Actions- whether specialist’s opinion that knee injury was permanent and/or change of employment were facts of a material and decisive nature.

Legislation:
Limitation of Actions Act 1974
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003

Cases Considered:

[1]   Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325.

Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited QCA 29

[2]   Taggart v The Workers Compensation Board of Queensland [1985] 2 Qd R 19

[3]   Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors [2007] QCA 327

[4]

COUNSEL:

Mr. de Plater for the applicant
Mr. Morton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Shultz Toomey O’Brien Lawyers for the applicant
CLS Lawyers for the respondent

[1]      The applicant, Mr. Daniel Manning suffered an injury to his knee at work on 29 September 2004. He was then employed by the respondent CSR Limited at its PGH Brickworks plant at Cooroy. His knee struck the engine cowling of a forklift that he was using to collect bricks from a drying kiln at about 9pm. The knee swelled immediately and he was unable to complete his shift. By the next day, he was in severe pain and unable to attend work.
[2] Mr. Manning now applies pursuant to s.31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 to extend the limitation period until 8 December 2007. By reason of s.11 of that Act the limitation period expired on 29.9.2007.
[3]      Mr. Manning did not consult a solicitor about his claim until October 2007, that is after the expiration of the limitation period.
[4]      His claim is governed by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 which was in force at the time of his accident. On 19.11.07 Judge Dodds granted leave to the applicant pursuant to s.298 of that Act to commence proceedings notwithstanding non-compliance with the Act, which leave was with the consent of the respondent subject to a number of conditions, one of which was the making of this application.
[5] To succeed with this application Mr. Manning must satisfy me “ that a material fact of a decisive character relating to the right of action was not within his means of knowledge … until a date after the commencement of the year preceding the expiration of the limitation period, and that there is evidence to establish the right of action apart from a limitation defence”: s.31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
[6]      As to the “right of action” requirement, Mr. Morton concedes on behalf of the respondent that there is such evidence.
[7]      In Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited QCA 29 [at 16] Thomas JA stated the correct approach as follows:

“If a reasonable (person) knowing what the plaintiff must have known, and…

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.

Continue reading Manning v CSR Limited

Details

AGLC: Manning v CSR Limited [2008] QDC 36
Case: [2008] QDC 36
Decision Date: 7 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Manning v CSR Limited involved a dispute between an employee and his employer regarding the application of limitation periods in workers' compensation claims. The court was asked to determine whether the specialist's opinion that the claimant's knee injury was permanent and/or the change in employment constituted facts of a material and decisive nature that would impact the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the claimant's knee injury being deemed permanent by a specialist and the subsequent change in employment were events that would trigger the limitation period under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether these events constituted facts of a material and decisive nature under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, which would affect the period within which a claim could be brought. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether these events should have been considered by the claimant at the time they occurred to determine the start of the limitation period.

The Queensland Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant legislation and considered previous cases such as Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited, Taggart v The Workers Compensation Board of Queensland, and Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited. The court found that neither the specialist's opinion on the permanency of the injury nor the change in employment were facts of a material and decisive nature that would trigger the limitation period. The court concluded that the claimant had sufficient information at the time of the injury and subsequent employment change to initiate a claim within the statutory period. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The court's decision was based on the understanding that the claimant was already aware of the injury and its potential consequences at the time of the events in question. The court held that these events did not constitute new or unforeseen facts that would materially alter the limitation period. Therefore, the limitation period began to run from the date of the initial injury, and the application to extend the limitation period was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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:	Manning v CSR Limited [2008] QDC 36
PARTIES:	DANIEL PAUL MANNING (Applicant) AND CSR LIMITED (ABN 90 000 001 276) (Respondent)
FILE NOS:	258/07
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	7.3.08
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	29.2.08
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	Limitation of Actions- whether specialist’s opinion that knee injury was permanent and/or change of employment were facts of a material and decisive nature. Legislation: Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 Cases Considered: [1] Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325. Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited QCA 29 [2] Taggart v The Workers Compensation Board of Queensland [1985] 2 Qd R 19 [3] Greenhalgh v Bacas Training Limited & Ors [2007] QCA 327 [4]
COUNSEL:	Mr. de Plater for the applicant Mr. Morton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Shultz Toomey O’Brien Lawyers for the applicant CLS Lawyers for the respondent