SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Pagnon v WorkCover Queensland [2000] QCA 421 PARTIES: ANTONIO ELSIO PAGNON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(defendant/applicant)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 6389 of 2000
DC No 226 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for leave s118 DCA (Civil) ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 10 October 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 11 September 2000 JUDGES: McPherson and Thomas JJA, Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER: Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO AND LIABILITY FOR COMPENSATION – PERSONS LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION – LIABILITY FOR INDEMNITY – QUEENSLAND – plaintiff/respondent injured while working for corporation that was dissolved after the injury was incurred – whether plaintiff could now sue the Board in respect of that injury
CORPORATIONS – WINDING UP – CONDUCT AND INCIDENTS OF LIQUIDATION – DISSOLUTION – RESTORATION OF DEFUNCT COMPANY TO REGISTER – IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES ORDER MADE - whether court would have exercised its discretion to reinstate company
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION – OTHER MATTERS - whether time to bring action had expired - whether acting against the Board constituted a new action
Corporations Law (Cth), s 562, s 571(1), s 601AD(1), s 601AF, s 601AG, s 601AH
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11
Motor Vehicles Insurance Acts 1936-1979 (Qld), s 4A(1), s 4F, s 4G
Workers Compensation Act 1990 (Qld) s 44(1)(b), s 183(1), s 186Brambles Construction Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213, distinguished
Blandford v Fox (1945) 45 SR (NSW) 241, mentioned
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Action Worker Pty Ltd (1996) 20 ASCR 712, mentioned
Deutsche Bank v Banque des Marchands du Moscou (1932) 158 LT 364, mentioned
Ellul v Active Home Improvements Pty Ltd (1993) 112 FLR 4, applied
Howell v Nominal Defendant (1962) 108 CLR 552, mentioned
Insurance Commissioner v Moss [1969] VR 650, mentioned.
Little v Suncorp Insurance and Finance [1989] 1 Qd R 633, approved
Lloyd v The Nominal Defendant (Queensland) [1972] Qd R 120, approved
Motor Terms Co Pty Ltd v Liberty Insurance Ltd (1967) 116 CLR 177, mentioned
Re General Rolling Stock Co (1872) LR 7 Ch App 646, applied
Re Harule Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 500, mentioned
Re H R Cody Pty Ltd (1992) 8 ASCR 563, mentioned
Re Lindsay Bowman Ltd [1969] 1 WLR 1443, mentioned
Re Morton (1996) 21 ASCR 497, mentioned
Re Producers’ Oilwell Supplies Ltd [1943] VLR 141, mentioned
Re William Bros Ltd (1945) 62 WN (NSW) 226, mentioned
Re Workvale Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 416, mentioned
Solla v Scott [1982] 2 NSWLR 832, mentioned
Universal Forming & Construction [1977] ACLR 29-398, mentioned
Venn v Direct Line Freight Pty Ltd [1983] 1 ACLC 898, mentionedCOUNSEL: P A Keane QC with G M Egan for the applicant
M Grant-Taylor for the…
Continue reading Pagnon v Workcover Queensland
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pagnon v Workcover Queensland [2000] QCA 421
- Case
- [2000] QCA 421
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether Pagnon's right to claim compensation was extinguished by the dissolution of the corporation, and if the Board was liable for indemnity. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the court would have exercised its discretion to reinstate the defunct company, and whether the statute of limitations barred Pagnon's claim. The court also considered if suing the Board constituted a new action, potentially restarting the limitation period.
In its reasoning, the court held that the plaintiff could not sue the Board for compensation as the corporation was dissolved after the injury occurred. The court also determined that the Board was not liable for indemnity and that it would not have exercised its discretion to reinstate the defunct company. The limitation period had expired, and suing the Board did not constitute a new action. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed with costs.
The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff was not entitled to compensation from the Board, and the Board was not liable for indemnity. The defunct company was not reinstated, and the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed with 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.