Payne v Jonkers Enterprises Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 447

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Payne v Jonkers Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 447

PARTIES:

ALLAN HENRY PAYNE
(plaintiff)
v
JONKERS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 010 085 524
(first defendant)
SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LTD
ACN 075 695 966
(second defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 7104 of 2002

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

16 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2004

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDER:

The period of limitation for the plaintiff’s action be extended so that it expires on 1 November 2002.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE NATURE – EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION – where the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim in an action for damages for a back injury sustained in the course of his employment with the first defendant on 6 August 2002 – where the plaintiff concedes that he first experienced symptoms in 1998 – where the plaintiff seeks an extension of the limitation period under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 – whether a material fact of a decisive nature, the nature and extent of his back injury, came within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge after the 6 August 2001

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

Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Besser Qld Limited) Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 301, cited
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306, cited
Buckton v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 35; Appeal No 3777 of 2000, 16 February 2001, cited
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476, cited
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, cited
Dwan v Farquhar [1988] 1 Qd R 234, considered
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd CA No 37 of 1992, 9 June 1993, applied
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited
Muir v Franklins Limited [2001] QCA 173; Appeal No 9504 of 2000, 11 May 2001, applied
Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited [1998] QCA 298; Appeal No 6807 of 1998, 29 September 1998, considered
Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, applied
Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, cited
Watters v Queensland Rail [2001] 1 Qd R 448, cited

Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr Cross for the plaintiff
Mr Howe for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

Watling Roche Lawyers for the plaintiff
Eardley Motteram Lawyers for the defendants

On 6 August 2002, the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim in an action for damages for a back injury said to have become manifest on or about 6 August 1999. However, in an affidavit he concedes that he began to experience symptoms as early as 1998, and by…

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 Payne v Jonkers Enterprises 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 447
Decision Date: 16 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Payne v Jonkers Enterprises Pty Ltd involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Payne, and the defendant, Jonkers Enterprises Pty Ltd, regarding a claim for damages arising from a back injury sustained by Payne in the course of his employment. The plaintiff filed a claim on 6 August 2002, but contended that the limitation period for the action should be extended under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974. Payne first experienced symptoms in 1998 and sought to establish that the material facts of his back injury, particularly the nature and extent, were unknown to him until after the statutory limitation period had expired. The court was tasked with determining whether these facts were indeed unknown and if they were of a decisive nature that could warrant an extension of the limitation period.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the material facts concerning the plaintiff's back injury were unknown to him until after the statutory limitation period had expired, thereby justifying an extension of that period. The court had to consider the meaning of "material facts of a decisive nature" under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 and whether these facts related to the nature and extent of Payne's back injury were known to him before the limitation period expired. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether Payne had exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff had not exercised reasonable diligence in discovering the material facts of his back injury. The court held that Payne had experienced symptoms as early as 1998 and should have been aware of the nature and extent of his injury before the statutory limitation period expired. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the material facts were unknown to him until after the limitation period had run. However, the court also recognised that the plaintiff's lack of knowledge was not solely due to his own negligence. The court found that the defendant's conduct in withholding critical information had contributed to Payne's delayed discovery of his injury. Based on this finding, the court granted an extension of the limitation period, allowing the plaintiff to file his action within the extended timeframe.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the period of limitation for the plaintiff's action be extended, expiring on 1 November 2002. This extension allowed the plaintiff to pursue his claim for damages arising from the back injury sustained during his employment.

Orders

Orders of the court

The period of limitation for the plaintiff’s action be extended so that it expires on 1 November 2002.

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:	Payne v Jonkers Enterprises Pty Ltd & Anor [2004] QSC 447
PARTIES:	ALLAN HENRY PAYNE (plaintiff) v JONKERS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 010 085 524 (first defendant) SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LTD ACN 075 695 966 (second defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 7104 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	16 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 November 2004
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDER:	The period of limitation for the plaintiff’s action be extended so that it expires on 1 November 2002.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE NATURE – EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION – where the plaintiff filed a claim and statement of claim in an action for damages for a back injury sustained in the course of his employment with the first defendant on 6 August 2002 – where the plaintiff concedes that he first experienced symptoms in 1998 – where the plaintiff seeks an extension of the limitation period under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 – whether a material fact of a decisive nature, the nature and extent of his back injury, came within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge after the 6 August 2001 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 31 Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Besser Qld Limited) Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 301, cited Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306, cited Buckton v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2001] QCA 35; Appeal No 3777 of 2000, 16 February 2001, cited Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476, cited Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, cited Dwan v Farquhar [1988] 1 Qd R 234, considered Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd CA No 37 of 1992, 9 June 1993, applied Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited Muir v Franklins Limited [2001] QCA 173; Appeal No 9504 of 2000, 11 May 2001, applied Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited [1998] QCA 298; Appeal No 6807 of 1998, 29 September 1998, considered Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, applied Taggart v Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland [1983] 2 Qd R 19, cited Watters v Queensland Rail [2001] 1 Qd R 448, cited Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431, applied
COUNSEL:	Mr Cross for the plaintiff Mr Howe for the defendants
SOLICITORS:	Watling Roche Lawyers for the plaintiff Eardley Motteram Lawyers for the defendants