Oats v Mt Isa Mines Limited - [1995] QSC 78

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
MT ISA DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. 3 of 1994

[Oats v. Mt Isa Mines Limited]

BETWEEN

PHILLIP REGINALD OATS

Plaintiff

AND

MT ISA MINES LIMITED
Defendant
JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.

Judgment delivered 10/5/1995

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE - Construction of Statute. Section 31 Limitation of Action Act 1974 (Qld) Sugden v. Crawford (1989) 1 QdR 683 applied

Counsel:R.J. Douglas for applicant/plaintiff
R. Myers for respondent/defendant

Solicitors:Nicol Robinson & Kidd acting as T/A
for V.R. Moffatt & Asssociates for applicant
Thynne & Macartney acting as T/A for L.A. Evans for respondent

Hearing date: 26 April 1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF QUEENSLAND
MT ISA DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. 3 of 1994

[P.R. Oats v. Mt Isa Mines Limited]

BETWEEN

PHILLIP REGINALD OATS

Plaintiff

AND

MT ISA MINES LIMITED
Defendant
JUDGMENT - SHEPHERDSON J.

Judgment Delivered 10 May 1995 - at Brisbane

In this application the plaintiff has sought an order pursuant to s.31 of The Limitation of Actions Act 1974 extending the limitation period in respect of a cause of action by the plaintiff against the defendant for personal injury and loss arising from an accident which occurred on or about 4 January 1988.
The writ of summons was filed on 15 February 1994 and the claim, as endorsed on the writ is based on alleged breach of contract, negligence and breach of statutory duty.
The material before me shows the following:-
(a)The applicant was born on 12 May 1947 and left school at age 16 after finishing grade 10.
(b)On 4 January 1988 the applicant was a trainee raise borer operator employed by the defendant and working at L49, 12 level Hilton Mine Mt Isa.
(c)At about 4.30pm on that date, while he was levelling out planks to put rods on, he was injured.
(d)In an application for workers' compensation which he signed on 12 February 1988, the applicant described how the injury occurred. He said -
"Rocks fell out of the roof, knocked me to the ground - hit in back and head - lacerating head".

(e)In a signed statement dated 23 February 1988, he referred to treatment given and mentioned "neck and back injuries also sustained in the rock fall." He said his middle back had "been x-rayed at the referral of Dr Foreman" and went on to say -
"I was bending over to pick up a plank when struck by a rock in the middle of the back. The rock had fallen from a height of approximately 12 feet. I was knocked to the ground and as I was trying to get up was struck in the head after my helmet was knocked off by a couple more rocks from the rock fall. I experienced muscular pain in the middle of the back ..."

(f)at the conclusion of that signed statement he said -
"My claim is for medical expenses only. My back and neck are not 100%."

(g)In his affidavit sworn on 3 March 1995, the applicant further described the incident of 4…

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 Oats v Mt Isa Mines Limited 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: [1995] QSC 78
Decision Date: 10 May 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Oats v Mt Isa Mines Limited, Phillip Reginald Oats sought an extension of the limitation period to pursue his claim against Mt Isa Mines Limited for personal injuries and losses arising from an accident on 4 January 1988. The plaintiff, an employee of Mt Isa Mines, was injured when rocks fell on him at the Hilton Mine in Mt Isa. He initially sought workers' compensation for his injuries but did not file a lawsuit against the defendant until 15 February 1994, which was beyond the statutory limitation period. The plaintiff argued that he was unaware of the full extent of his injuries until later and sought an extension of the limitation period under Section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's claim for an extension of the limitation period was justified. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff had a material fact of a decisive character that was not within his knowledge until after the limitation period had expired. The court examined the evidence, including the plaintiff's statements, medical records, and expert opinions, to assess the timing of the plaintiff's knowledge about the extent and impact of his injuries. The court found that the plaintiff's knowledge about the significant impact of his injuries on his ability to work was crucial and that this knowledge came to light only after consultations with medical professionals in late 1993. Given this new understanding, the court concluded that the plaintiff had satisfied the criteria for an extension under Section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for an extension of the limitation period, ordering that the period be extended to expire on 15 February 1994. The court also decided to reserve the issue of costs for the trial judge, considering the circumstances and the plaintiff's limited educational background.

Orders