Seaton v Lenoy

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Seaton v Lenoy [2003] QCA 226

PARTIES:

ACQUILA JUNE SEATON
(applicant)
v
ASHLEY ARNCLIFFE LENOY
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10847 of 2002
DC No 317 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

26 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2003

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where respondent convicted of unlawful wounding - where application for compensation pursuant to Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) filed outside the limitation period - where applicant lived in remote community - whether applicant's unawareness of ability to seek compensation was a "material factor of a decisive character" for the purposes of extending the limitation period

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where applicant suffered serious injuries as a result of attack - where applicant unaware of psychological impact of attack until after expiration of limitation period - whether diagnosis of psychological injury was a "material factor of a decisive character"

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC, with A J Kimmins, for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
M D Hinson SC, with S A McLeod, for intervenor amicus
curiae

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey (Samford) for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the intervenor amicus curiae

THE PRESIDENT: For the reasons given in Watson v Poynter [2003] QCA 224,Appeal No CA 9291 of 2002, in each of Lenoy v Seaton [2003] QCA 226, Appeal No CA 10847 of 2002, Lenoy v Smith [2003] QCA 225, Appeal No CA 10846 of 2002, and Conway v Ketchup [2003] QCA 228, Appeal No CA 9290 of 2002, the appeal and application for leave to appeal are refused.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Seaton v Lenoy, the respondent was convicted of unlawful wounding of the applicant. The applicant filed an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), outside the limitation period. The applicant lived in a remote community and was unaware of the ability to seek compensation. The applicant also suffered from a serious injury as a result of the attack, and was unaware of the psychological impact of the attack until after the expiration of the limitation period.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's unawareness of the ability to seek compensation and the diagnosis of the psychological injury were "material factors of a decisive character" that could justify an extension of the limitation period. The court also needed to consider whether the applicant's circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant an extension of the limitation period.

The court found that the applicant's unawareness of the ability to seek compensation was not a "material factor of a decisive character" that could justify an extension of the limitation period. The court held that the applicant's unawareness did not prevent her from seeking legal advice or taking steps to enforce her rights. The court also found that the diagnosis of the psychological injury was not a "material factor of a decisive character" that could justify an extension of the limitation period. The court held that the applicant's unawareness of the psychological injury did not prevent her from seeking legal advice or taking steps to enforce her rights.

The application for leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Seaton v Lenoy [2003] QCA 226
PARTIES:	ACQUILA JUNE SEATON (applicant) v ASHLEY ARNCLIFFE LENOY (respondent) ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (intervenor)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10847 of 2002 DC No 317 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	26 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where respondent convicted of unlawful wounding - where application for compensation pursuant to Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) filed outside the limitation period - where applicant lived in remote community - whether applicant's unawareness of ability to seek compensation was a "material factor of a decisive character" for the purposes of extending the limitation period LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where applicant suffered serious injuries as a result of attack - where applicant unaware of psychological impact of attack until after expiration of limitation period - whether diagnosis of psychological injury was a "material factor of a decisive character"
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC, with A J Kimmins, for the appellant No appearance for the respondent M D Hinson SC, with S A McLeod, for intervenor amicus curiae
SOLICITORS:	Tony Bailey (Samford) for the appellant No appearance for the respondent C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the intervenor amicus curiae