Oram v BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd - [2014] QSC 230

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Oram v BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QSC 230

PARTIES:

COLIN ORAM
(Applicant)

v
BHP MITSUI COAL PTY LTD
(First Respondent)

And
BHP COAL PTY LTD
(Second Respondent)

FILE NO:

317/2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

8 September 2014

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

Unless submissions are received on or before 4pm on 26 September 2014 the orders will be:

1. The application is dismissed

2. the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS - EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS – GENERALLY - where the applicant wishes to claim for damages for psychiatric injury against the respondents – where the limitation period for the claim has expired – whether a prima facie case shown – whether the respondents would suffer prejudice at trial - whether time should be extended

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

Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTSC 123 cited
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25 applied
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758; [1963] 1 All ER 341 cited
Chester v Waverly Corporation (1939) 62 CLR 1; [1939] HCA 25 cited
Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Ltd v Packer (2000) 23 WAR 159 cited
Clarkson v Modern Foundries Ltd [1958] 1 All ER 33 cited
Coleman v BHPCoal Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 232 cited
Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549; [1984] HCA 52 cited
Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Pty Ltd (2002) CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15 cited
Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72 cited
Martindale v Burrows (1997) 1 Qd R 243; [1996] QSC 113 cited
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; [1970] HCA 60 cited
Pullen v Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 cited
Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34 distinguished
Queensland Corrective Services Commissioner v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426 applied
Rowe v McCartney [1976] 2 NSWLR 72 cited
Sorrenti v Crown Corning Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 77 cited
Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317; [2002] HCA 35 applied
Stocks v Retirement Benefits Fund Board (2007) ANZ ConvR 254 cited
Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158; [1968] HCA 58 distinguished
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55 cited
Williams v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465; [1957] HCA 83 cited
Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431; [1993] QCA 114 cited
Wyong Shire Councilv Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12 cited

COUNSEL:

C Newton for the applicant

RJ Douglas QC for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Hall Payne Lawyers for the applicant

HWL…

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 Oram v BHP Mitsui Coal 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: [2014] QSC 230
Decision Date: 19 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Oram brought an application for an extension of time to claim damages for psychiatric injury against BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd. The limitation period for the claim had expired, and Oram sought an extension under the relevant statutory provisions. The court was tasked with determining whether Oram had shown a prima facie case for the claim, whether the respondents would suffer prejudice at trial if the extension was granted, and if the time should be extended accordingly.

The court considered whether Oram had demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay in bringing the claim, as well as whether the respondents would be prejudiced if the time was extended. Oram argued that the delay was due to the gradual realisation of the extent of the psychiatric injury, which was not apparent at the time of the incident. The court weighed these factors and concluded that Oram had not established a sufficient basis for an extension of time. The respondents would likely face prejudice at trial if the extension was granted, as the delay in bringing the claim had affected their ability to properly defend themselves.

The court found that Oram had not shown a prima facie case for the claim or demonstrated a reasonable excuse for the delay. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed. The court ordered that unless submissions were received by a specified time, the orders would be that the application was dismissed and that Oram would pay the respondents' costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Unless submissions are received on or before 4pm on 26 September 2014 the orders will be:

1. The application is dismissed

2. the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application

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:	Oram v BHP Mitsui Coal Pty Ltd & Anor [2014] QSC 230
PARTIES:	COLIN ORAM (Applicant) v BHP MITSUI COAL PTY LTD (First Respondent) And BHP COAL PTY LTD (Second Respondent)
FILE NO:	317/2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	19 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	8 September 2014
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDERS:	Unless submissions are received on or before 4pm on 26 September 2014 the orders will be: 1. The application is dismissed 2. the applicant to pay the respondents’ costs of the application
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS - EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS – GENERALLY - where the applicant wishes to claim for damages for psychiatric injury against the respondents – where the limitation period for the claim has expired – whether a prima facie case shown – whether the respondents would suffer prejudice at trial - whether time should be extended Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 31 Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTSC 123 cited Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25 applied Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758; [1963] 1 All ER 341 cited Chester v Waverly Corporation (1939) 62 CLR 1; [1939] HCA 25 cited Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Ltd v Packer (2000) 23 WAR 159 cited Clarkson v Modern Foundries Ltd [1958] 1 All ER 33 cited Coleman v BHPCoal Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 232 cited Jaensch v Coffey (1984) 155 CLR 549; [1984] HCA 52 cited Koehler v Cerebos (Aust) Pty Ltd (2002) CLR 44; [2005] HCA 15 cited Lynn v Bamber [1930] 2 KB 72 cited Martindale v Burrows (1997) 1 Qd R 243; [1996] QSC 113 cited Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383; [1970] HCA 60 cited Pullen v Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 cited Purkess v Crittenden (1965) 114 CLR 164; [1965] HCA 34 distinguished Queensland Corrective Services Commissioner v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426 applied Rowe v McCartney [1976] 2 NSWLR 72 cited Sorrenti v Crown Corning Ltd (1986) 7 NSWLR 77 cited Tame v State of New South Wales; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd (2002) 211 CLR 317; [2002] HCA 35 applied Stocks v Retirement Benefits Fund Board (2007) ANZ ConvR 254 cited Watts v Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158; [1968] HCA 58 distinguished Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; [1992] HCA 55 cited Williams v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465; [1957] HCA 83 cited Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431; [1993] QCA 114 cited Wyong Shire Councilv Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40; [1980] HCA 12 cited
COUNSEL:	C Newton for the applicant RJ Douglas QC for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Hall Payne Lawyers for the applicant HWL…