Morris v State of Qld - [2004] QCA 371

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Morris v State of Qld [2004] QCA 371

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY DAVID MORRIS
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 4618 of 2004
SC No 11569 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 October 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 September 2004; 7 September 2004

JUDGES:

Williams JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – where appellant commenced proceedings in December 2001 for personal injury sustained during his work as an undercover police officer – where appellant applied to have limitation period extended on ground that a material fact of a decisive character was not within his means of knowledge until after December 2000 – where learned primary judge refused application and granted summary judgment against appellant – whether learned primary judge erred in concluding that a material fact of a decisive character was within the appellant’s knowledge prior to December 2000

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31

COUNSEL:

D B Fraser QC, with G A Mullins, for the appellant
D O J North SC, with J B Rolls, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton for the appellant
Crown Law for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The appellant commenced proceedings against the respondent by filing a Claim and Statement of Claim on 21 December 2001. An amended statement of claim was filed in January 2004. In its defence the respondent pleaded the Statute of Limitations contending that the cause of action accrued more than three years prior to the commencement of the proceedings. The respondent then applied for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The appellant countered that application by applying pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 for an order that the relevant limitation period be extended on the ground that a material fact of a decisive character relating to his right of action was not within his means of knowledge until after 21 December 2000. After hearing both applications the learned judge at first instance dismissed the application of the appellant and entered judgment in the proceeding for the respondent. The appellant has appealed against each of those orders. The respondent admitted for purposes of the application and this appeal that, apart from the defence based on the Statute of Limitations, the appellant had an arguable cause of action.

The appeal must be determined against the background of the following facts. The appellant, who was born on 15 March 1968, entered the Police Academy early in 1985 after completing Year 12 of secondary schooling the previous year. He was sworn in…

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 Morris v State of Qld 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: [2004] QCA 371
Decision Date: 8 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Morris v State of Queensland, the appellant, who was an undercover police officer, initiated legal proceedings against the State of Queensland in December 2001, seeking compensation for personal injuries sustained during his service. The case was brought before the court to determine whether the limitation period for such claims could be extended beyond the statutory deadline. The central issue was whether the appellant had become aware of a material fact that was crucial to his cause of action after the statutory limitation period had expired.

The legal questions revolved around the interpretation and application of the statutory limitation period for personal injury claims and the concept of a material fact of decisive character. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether the appellant was aware of this critical fact prior to the expiration of the limitation period, as this would impact the possibility of extending the period under relevant legislation.

The court meticulously examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It concluded that the appellant had indeed been aware of the material fact of decisive character prior to the limitation period ending in December 2000. Consequently, the learned primary judge's decision to refuse the application for an extension of the limitation period and grant summary judgment against the appellant was upheld. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs

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:	Morris v State of Qld [2004] QCA 371
PARTIES:	TIMOTHY DAVID MORRIS (plaintiff/appellant) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 4618 of 2004 SC No 11569 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 October 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 September 2004; 7 September 2004
JUDGES:	Williams JA and Cullinane and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – where appellant commenced proceedings in December 2001 for personal injury sustained during his work as an undercover police officer – where appellant applied to have limitation period extended on ground that a material fact of a decisive character was not within his means of knowledge until after December 2000 – where learned primary judge refused application and granted summary judgment against appellant – whether learned primary judge erred in concluding that a material fact of a decisive character was within the appellant’s knowledge prior to December 2000 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31
COUNSEL:	D B Fraser QC, with G A Mullins, for the appellant D O J North SC, with J B Rolls, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gilshenan & Luton for the appellant Crown Law for the respondent