Saunders v State of Queensland - [2001] QSC 383

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Saunders v. State of Queensland [2001] QSC 383

PARTIES: SAUNDERS
(Applicant/Plaintiff)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND

(Respondents/Defendants)

FILE NO: S408/2000

DIVISION: Trial Division

DELIVERED ON: 2 October 2001

DELIVERED AT: Rockhampton

HEARING DATE: 27 August 2001

JUDGE: Dutney J

ORDERS:The period of limitation for the action be extended so that it expires on 31 August 2000. By consent the costs be reserved.
CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – PERSONAL INJURIES – EXTENSION OF TIME – Obsessive compulsive disorder – Post traumatic stress disorder – Whether plaintiff’s condition within means of knowledge of the plaintiff before the relevant date – Whether a decisive fact of a material nature.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s30, s31
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476 followed.
Midwest Radio Ltd v Arnold (QCA – Appeal 4010/98 – 12 Feb 1999 – unreported) referred to.
Pizer v Ansett [1988] QCA 298 referred to.
Queensland Corrective Services Commission v Gallagher [1998] QCA 426 referred to.
Taggart v The Workers’ Compensation Board [1983] 2 Qd R 19 referred to.

COUNSEL:DVC McMeekin SC with him AM Arnold for the Applicant/Plaintiff
RJ Douglas SC for the Respondent/Defendant

SOLICITORS: Grant & Simpson for the Applicant/Plaintiff
Crown Solicitor for the Respondent/Defendant

Dutney J: This is an application for an extension of time within which to commence an action for personal injury arising out of a period of employment of the applicant by the respondent at Rockhampton Correctional Centre from July 1996 until December 1996.

The applicant was employed as a trainee clerk and directed to work initially in the kitchen and bakehouse where he says he was exposed to high risk and dangerous prisoners. The applicant says he received no training in handling difficult or dangerous prisoners and guidelines requiring him to be accompanied by a correctional officer at all times were not followed. In August or September 1996 the applicant claims to have been threatened by a knife. On other occasions the applicant claims to have been taunted by prisoners. In October 1996 as a result of a correctional officers’ strike the applicant was assigned to correctional officer duties although he was neither trained for nor employed to do such duties. While supervising prisoners the applicant was threatened and his boots were taken from his feet by a prisoner and stolen.

The result of these events was that shortly after the strike the applicant began to exhibit signs of stress. He was having difficulty swallowing food and made multiple visits to his GP for reassurance. The applicant was unable to complete his traineeship and his employment was terminated on 9 December 1996 for continued absence from work. At this time the applicant’s symptoms were fear of choking and problems with eating, fear of travel, fear of crowds and being in crowded places, problems sleeping, vomiting, depression, panic, nightmares and weight loss.

Between ceasing employment at the prison and early 1999 the applicant had occasional work as a labourer, work as a removalist…

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 Saunders v State of Queensland 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: [2001] QSC 383
Decision Date: 2 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Saunders, the applicant, filed a case against the State of Queensland, the respondent, seeking an extension of time within which to commence an action for personal injury resulting from his employment at the Rockhampton Correctional Centre from July 1996 to December 1996. The applicant was employed as a trainee clerk and claims he was exposed to dangerous prisoners without proper training. He alleges he was threatened by a knife and taunted by prisoners, culminating in an incident where his boots were stolen by a prisoner. The applicant's mental health deteriorated, leading to symptoms such as fear, panic, and depression, resulting in the termination of his employment. The applicant began to exhibit signs of stress and sought medical help. Despite some improvement, the applicant's condition worsened, and he was diagnosed with obsessive compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder in 2000. The applicant commenced proceedings on 31 August 2000, and to justify an extension of the limitation period, he must have discovered a material fact of a decisive nature after 31 August 1999, which was outside his means of knowledge before that date.

The court had to determine whether the applicant discovered a material fact of a decisive nature after 31 August 1999, which was outside his means of knowledge before that date. The facts in question were the nature, seriousness, and duration of the injury. The applicant argued that he did not know the seriousness of his condition or its probable duration before the relevant date, and his advisers deliberately refrained from disclosing details of his condition to him. The court found that the applicant did not know the seriousness of his condition or its probable duration before the relevant date, and he lacked the means of knowledge, as even his advisers did not know and would not have told him for clinical reasons.

The court also had to determine whether the fact relied upon was decisive, meaning that a plaintiff unaware of the fact and properly advised would reasonably consider that the prospects of an award of damages did not justify the commencement of proceedings. The court found that had an action been successfully brought in August 1999, the applicant's damages would have included a modest amount for pain and suffering and a modest amount for some limited impact on earning capacity over the pre-trial period, from which a refund would be due to WorkCover. The court was satisfied that the applicant had satisfied the requirements of s31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 and ordered that the period of limitation for the action be extended so that it expires on 31 August 2000. The court further ordered that by consent the costs of the application be reserved.

Orders