Platen v WWP Pty Ltd - [2004] QSC 258

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Platen v WWP Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 258

PARTIES:

ROBERT PLATEN
(plaintiff)
v
WWP PTY LTD ACN 010 676 561
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

4356 of 2004

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application for extension of time

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 August 2004

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs

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 CHARACTER – where applicant labourer, more probably than not, contracted Q-fever at work – where sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action – time when actual knowledge acquired – whether such facts within applicant’s means of knowledge

Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 30, s 31

Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 Qd R 301,cited
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, considered
Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306, cited
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476, followed
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, followed
Miller v Broadbent and Anor, unreported decision of 12 August 1999 no 9682 of 1998, cited
Muir v Franklins Ltd [2001] QCA 173, cited

COUNSEL:

R W Trotter for the applicant
R M Treston for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gudkovs Power Osborne for the applicant
Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent

The applicant seeks an extension of the limitation period pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 to 19 May 2004 the date on which he issued proceedings for damages for personal injury arising out of the employment with the respondent.

The applicant contracted Q-fever endocarditis more probably than not whilst working as a labourer for the respondent at its wool processing plant at Warwick. He became symptomatic and attended the Warwick Base Hospital in May 1993 but was erroneously diagnosed as having glandular fever not Q-fever. That diagnosis was not made until 18 December 2001. Q-fever is caused by the bacterium Coxiella burnetii which afflicts sheep and cattle. It may be contracted by inhalation or the ingestion of spores. The respondent does not contend that the applicant ought to have commenced proceedings before diagnosis but since the cause of action probably arose in May 1993 contends that proceedings ought to have commenced within one year of diagnosis or, at the latest, February 2002. Proceedings were issued on 19 May 2004. The applicant contends that a material fact of a decisive nature was not within his knowledge or means of knowledge until the end of October 2003.

The applicant was born on 3 April 1972. He started farm work at the age of 16.

In December 1990 he commenced employment with the respondent, a wool processing company in Warwick. A detailed description of what was involved in his work is set out…

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 Platen v WWP 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 258
Decision Date: 19 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Platen v WWP Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Platen, a labourer, sought to extend the limitation period for bringing an action against his employer, WWP Pty Ltd, for damages arising from a Q-fever infection allegedly contracted at work. The primary dispute centred around whether the limitation period could be extended due to the plaintiff's lack of knowledge about the material facts necessary to establish his cause of action. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's cause of action for personal injuries had accrued at a point when he had actual knowledge of the material facts, or if the limitation period could be extended due to the plaintiff's delayed realisation of the causal link between his illness and his employment. The court needed to determine whether the material facts were of a decisive character and when the plaintiff actually knew or ought to have known these facts. The court had to assess the standard of proof required to establish the accrual of the cause of action and whether the plaintiff's actual knowledge of these facts fell within his means of knowledge.

The court held that the plaintiff's cause of action accrued when he had sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action, which was when he became aware that he more probably than not contracted Q-fever at work. The court determined that the material facts were those which established the causal link between the plaintiff's illness and his employment. The plaintiff's knowledge of these facts was assessed in light of the standard of proof required to establish the accrual of the cause of action. The court concluded that the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the material facts when he became aware that he more probably than not contracted Q-fever at work. As such, the limitation period could not be extended.

The application was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.

CITATION:	Platen v WWP Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 258
PARTIES:	ROBERT PLATEN (plaintiff) v WWP PTY LTD ACN 010 676 561 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	4356 of 2004
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for extension of time
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 August 2004
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs
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 CHARACTER – where applicant labourer, more probably than not, contracted Q-fever at work – where sufficient evidence to establish a cause of action – time when actual knowledge acquired – whether such facts within applicant’s means of knowledge Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 30, s 31 Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 Qd R 301,cited Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, considered Byers v Capricorn Coal Management Pty Ltd [1990] 2 Qd R 306, cited Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476, followed Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, followed Miller v Broadbent and Anor, unreported decision of 12 August 1999 no 9682 of 1998, cited Muir v Franklins Ltd [2001] QCA 173, cited
COUNSEL:	R W Trotter for the applicant R M Treston for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gudkovs Power Osborne for the applicant Bruce Thomas Lawyers for the respondent