MCA v State of Queensland - [2011] QSC 298

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

MCA v State of Queensland [2011] QSC 298

PARTIES:

MCA
(Plaintiff)

v

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 13454 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2011

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

The application for leave to extend the time for commencement of these proceedings is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS — EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS — KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER — KNOWLEDGE — GENERALLY — where the plaintiff commenced action against the defendant claiming damages for personal injuries and other loss and damage allegedly occasioned by the negligence of the defendant — where the plaintiff seeks, pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) an extension of time for the commencement of these legal proceedings — whether the material fact of a decisive character was within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge before the date being 12 months prior to the issue of the claim — whether an extension ought to be granted in the exercise of the court’s discretion

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210

HWC v Corporation for the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane & Ors [2009] QCA 168

Limpus v State of Queensland [2004] 2 Qd R 161

NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110

Page v The Central Queensland University [2006] QCA 478

Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2005] QCA 161.

The State of Queensland v Stephenson [2006] 226 CLR 197

COUNSEL:

Atkinson, DLK for the plaintiff

Morton, RC for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the plaintiff

Crown Law for the defendant

By claim and statement of claim filed 27 November 2009, the plaintiff claims damages for personal injuries and other loss and damage allegedly occasioned by the negligence of the defendant. The personal injuries and other loss or damage are alleged to have been caused by sexual abuse of the plaintiff by his teacher between 1982 and 1985. In its defence, the defendant pleaded, inter-alia, that the action is statute-barred.

By application filed 28 June 2011 the plaintiff seeks, pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (“the Act”), an extension of time for the commencement of those legal proceedings. It is accepted the plaintiff has established a material fact of a decisive character, was not within his actual knowledge until after 27 November 2008 (being the date 12 months prior to the issue of the claim), and there is evidence to otherwise establish the cause of action. The issues for determination are whether the material fact of a decisive character was within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge before that date, and whether an extension ought to be granted in the exercise of the court’s…

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 MCA v State of Queensland 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: [2011] QSC 298
Decision Date: 7 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MCA v State of Queensland, the applicant sought damages for personal injuries and other losses, alleging negligence on the part of the respondent. The crux of the case lay in the applicant’s request for an extension of the time limit for commencing the legal proceedings under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). This request was predicated on the applicant's assertion that they did not possess knowledge of the material facts of a decisive character until after the statutory 12-month period had elapsed before filing the claim. The Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the validity of this application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had actual knowledge of the material facts that would have enabled them to commence proceedings within the statutory time limit. The court had to consider whether the applicant had sufficient knowledge of these facts before the 12-month period prior to the filing of the claim. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether, in the exercise of its discretion, an extension should be granted under the relevant statute. This involved a nuanced interpretation of the statutory language and the circumstances surrounding the applicant’s knowledge.

The court found that the applicant had indeed had knowledge of the material facts of a decisive character before the statutory period had expired. Consequently, the applicant's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings was not in accordance with the statutory requirements. The court exercised its discretion and concluded that the applicant had not met the threshold for an extension of the limitation period. Therefore, the application for leave to extend the time for the commencement of the proceedings was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to extend the time for commencement of these proceedings is refused.

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:	MCA v State of Queensland [2011] QSC 298
PARTIES:	MCA (Plaintiff) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 13454 of 2009
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 September 2011
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	The application for leave to extend the time for commencement of these proceedings is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS — EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS — KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER — KNOWLEDGE — GENERALLY — where the plaintiff commenced action against the defendant claiming damages for personal injuries and other loss and damage allegedly occasioned by the negligence of the defendant — where the plaintiff seeks, pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) an extension of time for the commencement of these legal proceedings — whether the material fact of a decisive character was within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge before the date being 12 months prior to the issue of the claim — whether an extension ought to be granted in the exercise of the court’s discretion Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210 HWC v Corporation for the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane & Ors [2009] QCA 168 Limpus v State of Queensland [2004] 2 Qd R 161 NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110 Page v The Central Queensland University [2006] QCA 478 Raschke v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2005] QCA 161. The State of Queensland v Stephenson [2006] 226 CLR 197
COUNSEL:	Atkinson, DLK for the plaintiff Morton, RC for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Murphy Schmidt Solicitors for the plaintiff Crown Law for the defendant