SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Spain v Dipompo Jacs Constructions P/L & Anor [2009] QCA 323
PARTIES:
JOHN SPAIN
(applicant/respondent)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(first respondent/first appellant)
DIPOMPO JACS CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 079 467 262
(second respondent/second appellant)FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3632 of 2009
SC No 11107 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
23 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 September 2009
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Keane and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane and Holmes JJA agreeing as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed
2. Orders of the learned primary judge set aside
3. Respondent to pay the costs of the application below and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis
CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – GENERALLY – respondent claims he injured his back in November 2002 during his employment with the second appellant – respondent wishes to commence an action against the employer for damages for personal injuries but the limitation period has expired – respondent claims he was unaware of a material fact of a decisive character – whether the nature and extent of injury within respondent's means of knowledge before July 2008 – whether extension should have been granted
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31
Beale v Government Insurance of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430, cited
Camden v McKenzie [2008] 1 Qd R 39; [2007] QCA 136, cited
Castensen v Frankipile Australia [2004] QSC 145, cited
Ditchburn v Seltsam Ltd (1989) 17 NSWLR 697, cited
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, cited
Jocumsen v Thiess P/L & Anor [2005] QCA 198, cited
Kambarbakis v G & L Scaffold Contracting P/L [2008] QCA 262, cited
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725, cited
Mirage Resorts Holdings P/L as Trustee of the Mariners Paradise Property Trust v Brellen P/L [2003] QCA 579, cited
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, considered
Pizer v Ansett Australia Ltd [1998] QCA 298, cited
Queensland v Stephenson (2006) 226 CLR 197; [2006] HCA 20, consideredCOUNSEL: K F Holyoak for the appellants
R J Lynch for the respondentSOLICITORS:
McInnes Wilson Lawyers for the appellants
Nathan Lawyers for the respondent
McMURDO P: The respondent, John Spain, claims he injured his back in November 2002 in his employment as a construction form worker with the second appellant, Dipompo Jacs Constructions Pty Ltd. He claims the employer did not have in place a safe system of work to cope with the regular heavy lifting required of Mr Spain and this caused his 2002 back injury. He wants to commence an action against the employer for damages for personal…
Continue reading Spain v Dipompo Jacs Constructions Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Spain v Dipompo Jacs Constructions Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 323
- Case
- [2009] QCA 323
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's lack of knowledge of the material fact of a decisive character, namely the nature and extent of his injury, justified an extension of the limitation period for bringing an action for damages for personal injuries. The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the requirement that the respondent must have exercised reasonable diligence to discover the injury. The court also considered the evidence presented by both parties regarding the respondent's knowledge of his injury.
The court found that the respondent had not exercised reasonable diligence to discover the nature and extent of his injury, and that the material fact of a decisive character was within his means of knowledge before July 2008. The court held that the respondent's lack of knowledge did not constitute sufficient grounds for an extension of the limitation period. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the learned primary judge were set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the application below and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed
2. Orders of the learned primary judge set aside
3. Respondent to pay the costs of the application below and of the appeal to be assessed on the standard basis
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.