O'Halloran v Visy Board Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 123

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Halloran v Visy Board Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 123

PARTIES:

O’HALLORAN, Shaun Thomas
(plaintiff)
v
VISY BOARD PTY LTD ACN 58 005 787 913

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 3969 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application – Extension of Time

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2004

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

Application dismissed; applicant plaintiff to pay the respondent defendant’s costs

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – where the applicant plaintiff claims damages for negligence, breach of contract of employment and breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 in respect of back injuries that were allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent defendant – whether material facts of a decisive nature were within the applicant’s means of knowledge during the relevant period

Limitations of Actions Act 1974, s30, s31

Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Besser Qld) Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 301
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306
Dick v University of Queensland [1999] QCA 474
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325
Pizer v Ansett [1998] QCA 298
Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19
Watters v Qld Rail [2000] QCA 51.

COUNSEL:

M Burnett for the applicant plaintiff

AS Kitchin for the respondent defendant

SOLICITORS:

Kevin Bradley Solicitor for the applicant plaintiff

Dibbs Barker Gosling for the respondent defendant

On 2 May 2002, the applicant plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim alleging negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory duty on the part of his employer, the respondent defendant. More particularly, he pleads in the statement of claim that he has suffered “progressive permanent damage and excessive degenerative changes to the structures of his lumbar spine” as a result of his work for the defendant. The statement of claim alleges two distinct periods of damage: between 1983 and 1992, when the plaintiff worked as a machine operator, feeding sheets of cardboard into a machine, a job which involved repetitive bending and twisting; and a further period, from 1992 to the end of 1996, when, although the feeding of the machine was automated, there were periods of breakdown during which he had still to feed the cardboard in manually, and had also to lift and carry buckets of ink and pour their contents into the machine. By this application, the plaintiff seeks an extension of the limitation period to 26 July 2002. Why that date is chosen is not clear, because the plaintiff identifies 8 November 2001 as the date on which material facts of a decisive character - the nature and extent of the injury he had suffered and the fact that his condition was causally linked to the defendant’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 O'Halloran v Visy Board Pty Ltd 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] QSC 123
Decision Date: 21 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of O'Halloran v Visy Board Pty Ltd was presented, where the plaintiff, O'Halloran, sought damages for negligence, breach of contract of employment, and breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, due to back injuries sustained during his employment with Visy Board Pty Ltd. The central issue revolved around whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts of a decisive nature during the relevant period, which would have influenced the limitation of actions.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had knowledge of the material facts that would have enabled him to bring his claim within the statutory limitation period. The court had to consider the definition of 'material facts of a decisive nature' and whether the plaintiff's knowledge or means of knowledge of these facts could have postponed the bar of the limitation period. The court needed to balance the principle of fairness and the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had the means of knowledge of the material facts of a decisive nature during the relevant period. Therefore, the court held that the limitation period had not been postponed. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The decision underscored the necessity for plaintiffs to exercise due diligence in ascertaining the material facts of their claims and the potential consequences of failing to bring their claims within the statutory limitation period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed; applicant plaintiff to pay the respondent defendant’s 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:	O’Halloran v Visy Board Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 123
PARTIES:	O’HALLORAN, Shaun Thomas (plaintiff) v VISY BOARD PTY LTD ACN 58 005 787 913 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 3969 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application – Extension of Time
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 March 2004
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	Application dismissed; applicant plaintiff to pay the respondent defendant’s costs
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – where the applicant plaintiff claims damages for negligence, breach of contract of employment and breach of statutory duty under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 in respect of back injuries that were allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent defendant – whether material facts of a decisive nature were within the applicant’s means of knowledge during the relevant period Limitations of Actions Act 1974, s30, s31 Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Besser Qld) Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 301 Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306 Dick v University of Queensland [1999] QCA 474 Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325 Pizer v Ansett [1998] QCA 298 Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19 Watters v Qld Rail [2000] QCA 51.
COUNSEL:	M Burnett for the applicant plaintiff AS Kitchin for the respondent defendant
SOLICITORS:	Kevin Bradley Solicitor for the applicant plaintiff Dibbs Barker Gosling for the respondent defendant