Seery v Mount Isa Mines Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Seery v Mount Isa Mines Limited [2000] QSC 16

PARTIES:

SEERY, Mark Colin
(applicant)
v
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447
(respondent)

FILE NO:

624 of 2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

REASONS DELIVERED ON:

18 February 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 January 2000

JUDGE:

White J

ORDERS:

31 January 2000

1. The applicant be granted leave, pursuant to s 305(1) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, to commence proceedings against the respondent for personal injury in respect of alleged injury sustained in a work accident which occurred at Mount Isa in the State of Queensland on 2 February 1997.

2.        The lastmentioned leave is granted on condition that, subject to any relaxation from the same which may subsequently be granted by a court, prior to commencement of any proceedings the applicant comply with:

           a)        the relevant division under Part 2, and

b) Part 5, and

           c)        Part 6, and

d) Section 303 of the WorkCover Queensland           Act 1996

3.        There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKCOVER ACT 1996 – application for leave to commence proceedings – ss 302, 303, 305 and 308.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, ss 302, 303, 305(1) and 308

Durie v Data 3 Business Systems Pty Ltd & Ors (unreported decision no 599 of 2000)

COUNSEL:

Mr Richard Douglas SC for the applicant
Mr RI Myers for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Sciacca’s Lawyers for the applicant
Thynne & McCartney for the respondent

1. WHITE J: The applicant applied on 31 January 2000 for an order pursuant to s 305(1) of WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (“Act”) to commence an action for damages for personal injury sustained in a work‑related accident which occurred at Mount Isa on 2 February 1997. In the normal course the limitation period would expire on 2 February this year. The Act came into force on 1 February 1997 and therefore applies to this application.

1. The respondent self‑insurer contends that such leave would be futile because of the applicant’s need to comply strictly with the pre‑court proceedings procedures set out in chapter 5 of the Act and that the limitation period would, by then, have expired. When the applicant came before the court I was of the view that this submission was misconceived and made the order with reasons to be delivered subsequently and now do so.

1. The applicant sustained a back injury when driving underground mining machinery in circumstances which raise an arguable case of negligence.  That injury was exacerbated in October 1997.  The applicant was assessed by Dr E Guazzo and in a report to WorkCover dated 12 February 1998 he concluded, inter alia, that the applicant had a 15 per cent disability of his whole body which may be permanent.  The applicant consulted his present solicitors on 13 February 1998.  Dr R Likeman provided a report to WorkCover on 9 March 1998 recommending back surgery for the applicant and giving as his opinion that even if unsuccessful…