Nooteboom v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd

Case [2010] QSC 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Nooteboom v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 106

PARTIES:

ALFONS IGOR NOOTEBOOM
(applicant)
v
ERNEST HENRY MINING PTY LTD
ACN 008 495 574
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS 1910 of 2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 March 2010, written submissions 31 March 2010.

JUDGE:

A Lyons J

ORDER:

The application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER– EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION - where applicant suffered injuries in the course of his employment - where limitation period to bring action against employer has expired – where Industrial Magistrate subsequently made determination that the applicant’s injury was not excluded by s 32(5) of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – whether that determination amounts to a material fact of a decisive character under s 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 31.
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld)
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Charlton v WorkCover Qld & Ors [2006] QCA 498
Grove v Bestobell Pty Ltd (1980) Qd R 12
Hintz v WorkCover Qld & Ors [2007] QCA 72
Roberts v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited. [2005] QCA 470
Hinz v Ergon Energy Corporation Limited[2009] QDC 60
Meacham v Brambles Security (unreported Williams J 7503/1996 15 December 1998.)
Birkett v James [1978] AC 297

COUNSEL:

RAI Myers for the applicant
MT O’Sullivan for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
Walsh Halligan Douglas for the respondent

LYONS J:  A

  1. Alfons Nooteboom was employed as a mine technician at the Ernest Henry Mine (EHM) near Cloncurry for almost three years from February 2001 until 26 October 2003 when he suffered a breakdown and was admitted to hospital with panic attacks and anxiety.  Mr Nooteboom claims that the injury arose in the course of his employment at the mine where he was subject to workplace bullying.  He currently suffers from a major depressive disorder which requires ongoing psychiatric treatment.  

  1. Mr Nooteboom commenced a claim for workers compensation on 27 October 2004. He did not however give a notice as required under s 280 (1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) (WQA) or s 275 (1) of the subsequent Act the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (WCRA), within the period of limitation required by the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) for bringing proceedings for damages. It is now nine years since the applicant commenced his employment with the respondent and over six years since he ceased employment.

  1. By this application filed on 24 February 2010 the applicant seeks;

(i) leave pursuant to s 305 of the WQA and s 298 of the WCRA to commence proceedings against the respondent in respect of injuries suffered by him during his employment in…

Continue reading Nooteboom v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nooteboom v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 106
Case
[2010] QSC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nooteboom v Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, who had suffered injuries during the course of his employment. He sought an extension of the limitation period to bring an action against his employer, Ernest Henry Mining Pty Ltd, which had expired. The dispute hinged on whether the Industrial Magistrate's determination that the plaintiff's injury was not excluded by s 32(5) of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) constituted a material fact of decisive character under s 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The court was required to determine whether this determination justified an extension of the limitation period.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Industrial Magistrate's determination was a material fact of decisive character that could justify the extension of the limitation period. The court needed to examine the nature of the facts and whether they were of such a decisive character that they would have influenced a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position to bring proceedings earlier. The plaintiff argued that the determination was a material fact that justified an extension, while the defendant contended that it did not meet the threshold for such an extension.

The court examined the facts and the legislative framework governing the limitation period and the extension thereof. It found that the Industrial Magistrate's determination did not amount to a material fact of decisive character. The court held that the determination did not provide new information or change the plaintiff's legal position in a way that would have prompted a reasonable person to bring proceedings earlier. Therefore, the application for an extension of the limitation period was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the application to extend the limitation period was dismissed. This decision underscored the stringent requirements for establishing a material fact of decisive character and the limited circumstances in which an extension of the limitation period would be granted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is 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.