Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd - [2003] QDC 150

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 150

PARTIES:
JOHN WILLIAM STANTON

Applicant

and

DMK FOREST PRODUCTS PTY LTD
(ACN 001 002 428)

Respondent

FILE NO/S:
153/2003

DIVISION:
Civil

PROCEEDING:
Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:
16 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:
Southport

HEARING DATE:
14 April 2003

JUDGE:
Alan Wilson SC DCJ

ORDER:
Declare that the claimant is authorised to proceed further with his claim despite his non-compliance with s 9(3)(b) and 9(5) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

CATCHWORDS:
STATUTES – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – Notice of Claim under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 – delay – whether reasonable excuse for delay – discretionary relief – whether applicant should have leave to proceed notwithstanding delay, and absence of reasonable excuse

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

Cases considered:

Dempsey v Dorber (1990) 1 Qd R 418

Nielson v Peters Ship Repair Pty Ltd (1983) 2 Qd R 419 Randel v Brisbane City Council (1984) 2 Qd R 277

Parsons v Doukas (2001) 34 MVR 103

Piper v Nominal Defendant (2003) QSC 039

ReTonks (1999) 2 Qd R 671

Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524

Simpson v Hopemont Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] QSC 078

Solway v Lumley General Insurance Ltd & Ors (2003) QCA 136

Startune Pty Ltd v Ultra-Tune Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 1 Qd R 192

Taikato v the Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454

Thomas v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd (2003) 1 QD R 328

COUNSEL:
Ms K T Magee for the applicant
Mr K N Wilson SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:
Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin for the applicant
Jensen McConaghy for the respondent

This is an application under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA). Under s 9 of that Act a person who claims to be injured in circumstances which may involve proceedings for damages is required to give the alleged tortfeasor a Notice of Claim, containing information about the event, within a specified period. This applicant did not do so, but says he has given a “reasonable excuse” for that failure (a contingency the legislation also contemplates) and seeks a declaration that his subsequent, albeit late Notice is compliant. In the alternative he contends that, if his excuse was not reasonable, a power given to the Court under s 18(1)(c) to permit him to proceed notwithstanding non-compliance should be exercised in his favour.

Under UCPR r 26(8) an originating application of this kind or the material filed with it must show the Court has jurisdiction to decide the application[1]. The definition of “Court” in the schedule to PIPA provides that if no proceeding based on a claim has been started, references in the legislation are taken to be a reference to a Court “with jurisdiction to hear the claim”. The applicant’s Notice of Claim alleges he suffered a broken rib; bruising, cuts, abrasions, and lacerations; a neck injury; a back injury; and, headaches; and, that…

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 Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 150
Case: [2003] QDC 150
Decision Date: 16 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The claimant, Stanton, sought to commence proceedings for personal injuries sustained from an incident that occurred at a worksite managed by DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd. The primary dispute centred on Stanton's failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, specifically the timely submission of a Notice of Claim. The court was tasked with determining whether Stanton's significant delay in lodging the Notice of Claim could be excused, and if discretionary relief should be granted to allow the claim to proceed.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. Key questions included whether there was a reasonable excuse for the delay in submitting the Notice of Claim, and if Stanton should be granted leave to proceed with the claim despite the non-compliance. The court also considered whether the statutory provisions were strictly mandatory or whether the court had discretion to grant relief in exceptional circumstances.

The court examined the statutory framework and relevant case law to assess the nature of the statutory obligations. It found that while the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 were mandatory, the court retained discretion to grant relief in cases where there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, or where justice otherwise required it. The court concluded that Stanton had presented a credible explanation for the delay and found that there were substantial merits to his claim. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to grant Stanton leave to proceed with his claim despite the non-compliance with the statutory notice requirements.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declare that the claimant is authorised to proceed further with his claim despite his non-compliance with s 9(3)(b) and 9(5) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

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:	Stanton v DMK Forest Products Pty Ltd [2003] QDC 150
PARTIES:	JOHN WILLIAM STANTON Applicant and DMK FOREST PRODUCTS PTY LTD (ACN 001 002 428) Respondent
FILE NO/S:	153/2003
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	14 April 2003
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC DCJ
ORDER:	*Declare that the claimant is authorised to proceed further with his claim despite his non-compliance with s 9(3)(b) and 9(5) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act* 2002**
CATCHWORDS:	STATUTES – STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION – Notice of Claim under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 – delay – whether reasonable excuse for delay – discretionary relief – whether applicant should have leave to proceed notwithstanding delay, and absence of reasonable excuse Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 Cases considered: Dempsey v Dorber (1990) 1 Qd R 418 Nielson v Peters Ship Repair Pty Ltd (1983) 2 Qd R 419 Randel v Brisbane City Council (1984) 2 Qd R 277 Parsons v Doukas (2001) 34 MVR 103 Piper v Nominal Defendant (2003) QSC 039 ReTonks (1999) 2 Qd R 671 Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524 Simpson v Hopemont Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] QSC 078 Solway v Lumley General Insurance Ltd & Ors (2003) QCA 136 Startune Pty Ltd v Ultra-Tune Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd (1991) 1 Qd R 192 Taikato v the Queen (1996) 186 CLR 454 Thomas v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd (2003) 1 QD R 328
COUNSEL:	Ms K T Magee for the applicant Mr K N Wilson SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Primrose Couper Cronin Rudkin for the applicant Jensen McConaghy for the respondent