State of Queensland v RAF - [2010] QCA 332

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

State of Queensland v RAF [2010] QCA 332

PARTIES:

STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant/respondent)
v
RAF
(respondent/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7402 of 2010
SC No 104 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2010

JUDGE:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – DISABILITY – UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND – WHAT CONSTITUTES – where respondent commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland for personal injury suffered as a result of sexual abuse perpetrated by her step father – where contemporaneous complaints were made to the relevant government department but no action taken to protect the child from further abuse – where it was agreed that the respondent was under the disability of infancy until the age of 18 – where the respondent suffered from a significant personality disorder from the age of 10 years – whether the respondent was under a relevant disability at all material times – whether there was any sufficient amelioration of the respondent’s condition to enable her to pursue her cause of action

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – GENERALLY – where the material fact relied upon was that the respondent was unaware that evidence existed in Departmental records to support her claim – whether the newly discovered facts had the necessary quality of decisiveness – whether all reasonable steps had been taken to discover the nature of the evidence contained within the Departmental records before the critical date – whether the respondent’s mental condition restricted her capacity to form and act upon rational decisions in relation to the cause of action – whether the limitation period should be extended

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 5(2), s 29, s 30(1), s 31

Flemming v Gibson [2001] QCA 244, considered
King v Coupland [1981] Qd R 121, considered
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, cited
Pizer v Ansett Australia Ltd[1998] QCA 298, cited
Saunders and Anor v Jackson [2009] NSWCA 192, cited
Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, considered

COUNSEL:

D J Kelly for the appellant
K C Fleming QC, with S J R Cilento, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Dempsey Lawyers for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: This appeal should be dismissed with costs for the reasons given by McMeekin J.

WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of McMeekin J and agree with his Honour that the appeal should be dismissed.

McMEEKIN J: The respondent commenced proceedings on 12 February 2007 for damages against the State of Queensland…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read State of Queensland v RAF and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] QCA 332
Decision Date: 26/11/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland, claiming damages for personal injury arising from sexual abuse inflicted by her step-father. The respondent was under the disability of infancy until she turned 18 and had suffered from a significant personality disorder from the age of 10. The central issue in the case was whether the respondent's disability or her lack of knowledge of material facts precluded the limitation period from running.

The court examined whether the respondent's mental condition constituted a disability that could suspend or postpone the limitation period. The court noted that a disability must be of a nature that prevents a person from understanding the need to commence proceedings and acting on that understanding. The court concluded that while the respondent's personality disorder impaired her capacity to make rational decisions, it did not entirely prevent her from understanding the need to pursue her cause of action. The court also considered whether the limitation period could be extended based on the respondent's lack of knowledge of material facts. The court held that the facts relied upon did not have the necessary quality of decisiveness, and the respondent had not taken all reasonable steps to discover the evidence within the Departmental records before the critical date.

The court found that the respondent's disability did not entirely prevent her from understanding the need to pursue her cause of action, and the limitation period was not extended based on her lack of knowledge of material facts. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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:	State of Queensland v RAF [2010] QCA 332
PARTIES:	STATE OF QUEENSLAND (appellant/respondent) v RAF (respondent/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7402 of 2010 SC No 104 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 November 2010
JUDGE:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – DISABILITY – UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND – WHAT CONSTITUTES – where respondent commenced proceedings against the State of Queensland for personal injury suffered as a result of sexual abuse perpetrated by her step father – where contemporaneous complaints were made to the relevant government department but no action taken to protect the child from further abuse – where it was agreed that the respondent was under the disability of infancy until the age of 18 – where the respondent suffered from a significant personality disorder from the age of 10 years – whether the respondent was under a relevant disability at all material times – whether there was any sufficient amelioration of the respondent’s condition to enable her to pursue her cause of action LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER – GENERALLY – where the material fact relied upon was that the respondent was unaware that evidence existed in Departmental records to support her claim – whether the newly discovered facts had the necessary quality of decisiveness – whether all reasonable steps had been taken to discover the nature of the evidence contained within the Departmental records before the critical date – whether the respondent’s mental condition restricted her capacity to form and act upon rational decisions in relation to the cause of action – whether the limitation period should be extended Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 5(2), s 29, s 30(1), s 31 Flemming v Gibson [2001] QCA 244, considered King v Coupland [1981] Qd R 121, considered NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, cited Pizer v Ansett Australia Ltd[1998] QCA 298, cited Saunders and Anor v Jackson [2009] NSWCA 192, cited Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, considered
COUNSEL:	D J Kelly for the appellant K C Fleming QC, with S J R Cilento, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the appellant Dempsey Lawyers for the respondent