Sciacca v Ling - [2013] QSC 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sciacca v Ling & Anor [2013] QSC 97

PARTIES:

Salvatore Guiseppe Sciacca

(Applicant/Plaintiff)

v

Joseph Sau Kien Ling

(Respondent /First Defendant)

and

Simon John Birchley

(Respondent/Second Defendant)

FILE NO:

S614/10

DIVISION:

Application

PROCEEDING:

Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

21, 22 February 2013

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

Application dismissed

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 – EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION - POWER OF COURT TO EXTEND TIME

Limitation Act 1969 (N.S.W)

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

CASES:

Simon-Beecroft v The Proprietors “Top of the Mark” Building Units Plan Number 3410 & Anor [1996] QCA 239

Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

Castlemaine Perkins Ltd v McPhee [1979] Qd R 469 at 472-473.

Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476

Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1983-1884) 154 CLR 243

Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210

Fyles v Clarke [2000] QCA 28

Morris v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 371

Neilson v. Peters Ship Repair Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 419

NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110

Randel v Brisbane City Council [1984] 2 Qd R 276

Reeman v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 484

Russell v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 370

State of Queensland v Stephenson (2006) CLR 197

Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 483

Young v The Commissioner of Fire Service [1997] QSC 43

COUNSEL:

Mr J A Griffin QC with Mr A Moon for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

Mr G W Diehm SC for the Respondent/First Defendant.

Mr D B Fraser QC for the Respondent/Second Defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Wilson Ryan Grose for the Applicant/Plaintiff.

Avanti Law for the Respondent/First Defendant.

Norton Rose for the Respondent/Second Defendant.

The applicant was born on 18 May 1947. He was a successful businessman.[1] His first enterprise was cane farming. After that he diversified into coffee and bananas. Later he owned a prawn farm and other aqua and agricultural ventures and he also engaged in the development of properties. At one time he employed or supervised more than 20 employees. The plaintiff impressed me as an intelligent man. In his written outline senior counsel for the second defendant submitted the plaintiff was and remained “a sophisticated, intelligent person who was acutely aware of where his best interests lie.”[2] In my view the submission is well made.
[1] T 1-7 l 45ff.
[2] Document 49 court file, para 6.

The first defendant is a cardiologist and the second defendant a general practitioner.

The plaintiff has a congenital condition known as “McArdle’s syndrome” and from time to time has suffered from rhabdomyolysis. Until the subject event the plaintiff had on about 10 or 11 occasions during…

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 Sciacca v Ling 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: [2013] QSC 97
Decision Date: 15 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Sciacca v Ling was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia. The plaintiff, Sciacca, brought the case against Ling, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in an incident. The crux of the dispute centred on whether the court had the authority to extend the limitation period for initiating legal action, given the plaintiff's late recognition of the full extent of their injuries. The court was tasked with determining whether Sciacca's claim was barred by the limitation period and, if not, whether the time for instituting proceedings could be extended.

The legal issues that arose in this case pertained to the principles governing the limitation of actions in personal injury cases and the circumstances under which a court might extend the statutory period for bringing a claim. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Sciacca's knowledge of the material facts and their decisive character could justify postponing the start of the limitation period. Additionally, the court had to assess whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Sciacca could not have reasonably discovered their right to action earlier, and whether the court had the discretion to extend the limitation period in these unique circumstances.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law regarding the limitation of actions, focusing on the concept of when the cause of action accrues and the relevance of the plaintiff's knowledge of material facts. The Supreme Court found that Sciacca's knowledge of the material facts did not unequivocally determine the accrual of the cause of action. However, the court concluded that the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish that Sciacca could not have discovered their right to action earlier, and therefore, the limitation period could not be extended. Consequently, the application to extend the limitation period was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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:	Sciacca v Ling & Anor [2013] QSC 97
PARTIES:	Salvatore Guiseppe Sciacca (Applicant/Plaintiff) v Joseph Sau Kien Ling (Respondent /First Defendant) and Simon John Birchley (Respondent/Second Defendant)
FILE NO:	S614/10
DIVISION:	Application
PROCEEDING:	Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	21, 22 February 2013
JUDGE:	North J
ORDER:	Application dismissed
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 – EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH RIGHT OF ACTION - POWER OF COURT TO EXTEND TIME
Limitation Act 1969 (N.S.W) Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
CASES:	Simon-Beecroft v The Proprietors “Top of the Mark” Building Units Plan Number 3410 & Anor [1996] QCA 239 Bougoure v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 485 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Castlemaine Perkins Ltd v McPhee [1979] Qd R 469 at 472-473. Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 Qd R 476 Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1983-1884) 154 CLR 243 Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210 Fyles v Clarke [2000] QCA 28 Morris v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 371 Neilson v. Peters Ship Repair Pty Ltd [1983] 2 Qd R 419 NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110 Randel v Brisbane City Council [1984] 2 Qd R 276 Reeman v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 484 Russell v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 370 State of Queensland v Stephenson (2006) CLR 197 Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QCA 483 Young v The Commissioner of Fire Service [1997] QSC 43
COUNSEL:	Mr J A Griffin QC with Mr A Moon for the Applicant/Plaintiff. Mr G W Diehm SC for the Respondent/First Defendant. Mr D B Fraser QC for the Respondent/Second Defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Wilson Ryan Grose for the Applicant/Plaintiff. Avanti Law for the Respondent/First Defendant. Norton Rose for the Respondent/Second Defendant.