NF v State of Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

NF v State of Qld [2005] QCA 110

PARTIES:

NF
(applicant/respondent)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8648 of 2004
SC No 2309 of 1997

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 March 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Appeal dismissed
2.    Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal to       be assessed

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 A DECISIVE CHARACTER - where respondent commenced action for personal injuries suffered while in the care of the appellant in 1968 - where appellant pleaded that the action was barred by limitation of actions legislation - where respondent successfully obtained order that limitations period be extended - where respondent pleaded that causal link between State care and her psychological problems was not known until consultations with a psychologist in 1996 - where appellant contended this fact was revealed during previous psychiatric treatment - whether respondent could prove that material fact of decisive character only came within her means of knowledge in 1996 - whether respondent had acted unreasonably in failing to pursue further inquiries before that time

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR - EXTENSION OF PERIOD - CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES - EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION - where appellant did not deny owing duty of care to respondent - where evidence adduced by respondent established prima facie breach of duty of care - whether evidence sufficient to establish a right of action

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR - EXTENSION OF PERIOD - POWER OF COURT TO EXTEND TIME - where trial judge concluded that passage of time did not prevent a fair trial - where good faith and honesty of those providing care on behalf of the State not in issue - where there is a fully documented record of treatment to which respondent was subjected - where it is the reasonableness of disciplinary proceedings that will be assessed - whether there was a likely prospect of a fair trial notwithstanding the passage of time

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31

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

Carter v The Corporation of the Sisters of Mercy of the Diocese of Rockhampton & Ors [2001] QCA 335; Appeal No 8777 of 2000, 24 August 2001, discussed

Healy v Femdale [1993] QCA 210; CA No 37 of 1992, 9 June 1993, cited

Hopkins v State of Queensland [2004] QDC 021; DC No 2258 of 2003, 24 February 2004, considered

Kosky v Trustees…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NF 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
[2005] QCA 110
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the State of Queensland against an order granting the respondent, NF, an extension of the limitation period for her action concerning personal injuries sustained while in the care of the appellant in 1968. The State argued that the action was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and that NF had not met the criteria to extend the limitation period. NF contended that the causal link between her State care and her psychological problems was not known until 1996, and therefore, the material facts of a decisive character only came within her knowledge in that year.

The court was required to decide whether NF could prove that the material fact of a decisive character only came within her knowledge in 1996, and whether she had acted unreasonably in failing to pursue further inquiries before that time. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the evidence adduced by NF was sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of duty of care, and whether the trial judge was correct in concluding that the passage of time did not prevent a fair trial.

The court held that NF had satisfied the criteria for extending the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The court found that NF had demonstrated that the material facts of a decisive character only came within her knowledge in 1996, and that she had acted reasonably in failing to pursue further inquiries before that time. The court also held that the evidence adduced by NF was sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of duty of care, and that the trial judge was correct in concluding that the passage of time did not prevent a fair trial. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal to be assessed

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.