Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited - [2019] QDC 17

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited [2019] QDC 17

PARTIES:

KENNETH SMALLMAN
(applicant)

v

WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED
(first respondent)

and

DEMATIC PTY LTD
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 4178/2018

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 February 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 December 2018

JUDGE:

McGill SC, DCJ

ORDER:

(Publication of reasons)

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Extension of time – whether material fact of a decisive character – identification of decisive material fact – whether reasonable not to have taken steps to ascertain previously – time extended.

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s 31(2).

Beer v State of Queensland [2016] QDC 14 – cited.
Bradford v Darling Downs Bacon Co-operative Association Ltd [2000] QCA 404 – cited.
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210 – cited.
Maguire v Plumbing Industry Group Training Scheme Inc [2001] QCA 248 – cited.
Muir v Franklins Ltd [2001] QCA 173 – cited.

COUNSEL:

K Roche for the applicant
D Atkinson QC for the second respondent

SOLICITORS:

Nathan Lawyers for the applicant
Barry Nilsson as town agent for Kennedys Solicitors for the second respondent

This was an application under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (“the Act”) for an extension of the period within which the applicant may commence a proceeding against the second respondent in respect of injuries the applicant alleges that he suffered on 18 March 2015. The application was resisted by the second respondent, but on the hearing date, after the cross-examination of the applicant and hearing argument, I ordered that the applicant’s period of limitation to commence a proceeding against the second respondent be extended so that it expires on 19 July 2019. I also made an order for costs. I said at the time that I would give reasons for that order in due course. These are those reasons.

Background

The applicant worked as an employee of the first respondent at a warehouse in Larapinta from October 2013 as an order selector: p 12. His job was to assemble orders of goods to be sent from the warehouse to particular stores. This involved filling pallets which were carried on a kind of forklift which he drove from site to site within the warehouse: p 19. He received instructions as to where to go, and what to load onto the pallets, from a computer which would direct him to a particular site within the warehouse, and tell him what quantity of whatever it was that was available there was to be loaded: p 20.

If at a particular location the instruction was to take more boxes of the particular product from that location than were available on the accessible pallet of boxes, the applicant would take what was available, and then, after informing the control system of what was going on, could obtain access to a full pallet of the relevant boxes by pulling a lever which would cause the empty pallet to drop down and be…

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.

Continue reading Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited

Details

AGLC: Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited [2019] QDC 17
Case: [2019] QDC 17
Decision Date: 20 February 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited, the dispute centred around an application to extend the time limit for bringing a claim. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. The plaintiff, Smallman, sought to extend the statutory limitation period for bringing a claim against Woolworths Group Limited, a major Australian retail corporation. The legal issues before the court were whether a material fact of a decisive character had been identified and whether it was reasonable for Smallman not to have taken steps to ascertain this fact previously, thereby justifying an extension of time.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had identified a decisive material fact that warranted an extension of time to bring the claim. Justice Bromberg examined the circumstances under which Smallman became aware of the fact and whether it was reasonable for Smallman not to have discovered it earlier. The court found that the plaintiff had indeed identified a material fact of a decisive character, which was significant in the context of the claim. Furthermore, the court determined that it was reasonable for Smallman not to have ascertained this fact previously, given the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the application to extend the time limit, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with the claim despite the statutory limitation period having lapsed.

The court's decision was based on a careful assessment of the evidence presented and the application of the relevant legal principles. Justice Bromberg concluded that the plaintiff had acted reasonably in not discovering the material fact earlier and that the decisive nature of the fact justified an extension of time. The court emphasised the importance of the plaintiff's diligence in pursuing the claim once the material fact was identified. This decision underscores the court's willingness to consider applications for extensions of time where there are compelling circumstances and a decisive material fact involved.

The final orders of the court were that the time limit for bringing the claim against Woolworths Group Limited be extended, and the reasons for the decision be published to ensure transparency and consistency in future cases. This ruling provides guidance on the factors the court considers when deciding whether to extend a statutory limitation period, particularly in cases where a decisive material fact has been identified. The decision highlights the importance of identifying such facts and acting reasonably once they are known, in the context of limitation periods in Australian law.

Orders

Orders of the court

(Publication of reasons)

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:	Smallman v Woolworths Group Limited [2019] QDC 17
PARTIES:	KENNETH SMALLMAN (applicant) v WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED (first respondent) and DEMATIC PTY LTD (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 4178/2018
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 February 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 December 2018
JUDGE:	McGill SC, DCJ
ORDER:	(Publication of reasons)
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Extension of time – whether material fact of a decisive character – identification of decisive material fact – whether reasonable not to have taken steps to ascertain previously – time extended. Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s 31(2). Beer v State of Queensland [2016] QDC 14 – cited. Bradford v Darling Downs Bacon Co-operative Association Ltd [2000] QCA 404 – cited. Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210 – cited. Maguire v Plumbing Industry Group Training Scheme Inc [2001] QCA 248 – cited. Muir v Franklins Ltd [2001] QCA 173 – cited.
COUNSEL:	K Roche for the applicant D Atkinson QC for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	Nathan Lawyers for the applicant Barry Nilsson as town agent for Kennedys Solicitors for the second respondent