Rose v Anglo Coal (Dawson Management) Pty Ltd - [2025] QSC 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rose v Anglo Coal (Dawson Management) Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 160

PARTIES:

ANDREW CLARENCE ROSE

(applicant)

v
ANGLO COAL (DAWSON MANAGEMENT) PTY LIMITED

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 1338 of 2025

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 July 2025

JUDGE:

Kelly J

ORDERS:

1. Pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) the period of limitation for the applicant’s right of action against the respondent be extended to 30 September 2025.

2. Pursuant to s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), the applicant is given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring:

a. A conference being held pursuant to s 36 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 39 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld); or

b. The date of agreement if the parties dispense with the compulsory conference by agreement pursuant to s 36(4) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld);

c. An order by the Court pursuant to s 36(5) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) dispensing with the compulsory conference.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in or caused by a workplace accident at a mine – where the accident occurred on 30 September 2021 and the three years limitation period expired on 30 September 2024 – where the applicant applies pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to extend the time limit to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries against the respondent – where the respondent resists the application on the ground that the applicant failed to establish that a material fact of a decisive character was not within the applicant’s knowledge until a date after 30 September 2023 – where a material fact is considered decisive if absent the alleged newly learned fact the applicant would not, even with the benefit of appropriate advice, have previously recognised that they had a worthwhile action to pursue and should in their own interests pursue it – whether the material facts were able to be found out by the applicant had the applicant taken all reasonable steps before the commencement of the year last preceding the expiration of the period of limitation – whether the time limit for the applicant to commence proceedings against the respondent should be extended

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31(1), s 31(2)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 43

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 278A

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60

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 Rose v Anglo Coal (Dawson Management) 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: [2025] QSC 160
Decision Date: 11 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Rose v Anglo Coal (Dawson Management) Pty Ltd involved a plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in a workplace accident at a mine. The accident occurred on 30 September 2021, and the three-year limitation period for bringing an action expired on 30 September 2024. The plaintiff applied for an extension of time to commence proceedings against the defendant under section 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff failed to establish that a material fact of a decisive character was not within the plaintiff's knowledge until a date after 30 September 2023. The court had to decide whether the material facts were able to be found out by the plaintiff had the plaintiff taken all reasonable steps before the commencement of the year last preceding the expiration of the period of limitation.

The court considered the principles established in previous cases, including that a material fact is decisive if, absent the newly learned fact, the plaintiff would not, even with the benefit of appropriate advice, have previously recognised that they had a worthwhile action to pursue and should in their own interests pursue it. The court held that the plaintiff had established that the material facts were not within their knowledge until after 30 September 2023. The court found that the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to discover the material facts before the limitation period expired. The court was satisfied that the plaintiff had made a credible and reasonable effort to investigate the circumstances of the accident and their injuries.

The court granted the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings against the defendant. The court extended the limitation period to 30 September 2025 and gave the plaintiff leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of a conference being held and final offers being exchanged, or if the parties dispense with the compulsory conference by agreement or the court dispenses with the compulsory conference. The court reserved costs for further hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) the period of limitation for the applicant’s right of action against the respondent be extended to 30 September 2025.

2. Pursuant to s 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), the applicant is given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring:

a. A conference being held pursuant to s 36 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 39 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld); or

b. The date of agreement if the parties dispense with the compulsory conference by agreement pursuant to s 36(4) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld);

c. An order by the Court pursuant to s 36(5) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) dispensing with the compulsory conference.

3. I will hear the parties as to 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:	Rose v Anglo Coal (Dawson Management) Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 160
PARTIES:	ANDREW CLARENCE ROSE (applicant) v ANGLO COAL (DAWSON MANAGEMENT) PTY LIMITED (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 1338 of 2025
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 July 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 July 2025
JUDGE:	Kelly J
ORDERS:	1. Pursuant to s 31(2) of the *Limitations of Actions Act 1974* (Qld) the period of limitation for the applicant’s right of action against the respondent be extended to 30 September 2025. 2. Pursuant to s 43 of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* (Qld), the applicant is given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring: a. A conference being held pursuant to s 36 of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* (Qld) and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 39 of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* (Qld); or b. The date of agreement if the parties dispense with the compulsory conference by agreement pursuant to s 36(4) of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* (Qld); c. An order by the Court pursuant to s 36(5) of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* (Qld) dispensing with the compulsory conference. 3. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks to recover damages for personal injuries allegedly suffered in or caused by a workplace accident at a mine – where the accident occurred on 30 September 2021 and the three years limitation period expired on 30 September 2024 – where the applicant applies pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to extend the time limit to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries against the respondent – where the respondent resists the application on the ground that the applicant failed to establish that a material fact of a decisive character was not within the applicant’s knowledge until a date after 30 September 2023 – where a material fact is considered decisive if absent the alleged newly learned fact the applicant would not, even with the benefit of appropriate advice, have previously recognised that they had a worthwhile action to pursue and should in their own interests pursue it – whether the material facts were able to be found out by the applicant had the applicant taken all reasonable steps before the commencement of the year last preceding the expiration of the period of limitation – whether the time limit for the applicant to commence proceedings against the respondent should be extended Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31(1), s 31(2) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 43 Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 278A Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60