Switzer v Qantas Airways Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Switzer v Qantas Airways Limited [2011] QDC 52

PARTIES:

JASON TROY SWITZER

(Applicant/Plaintiff)

v

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED

(Respondent/Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BD 249/11

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application to extend limitation period

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2011

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   That the period of limitation for the proceeding be extended so it expires on 10 February 2010.

2.   Reserve the issue of costs, subject to submissions.

CATCHWORDS:

Limitation of actions – where initial specialist advice negates causal relationship – when increasing symptoms should have initiated reasonable inquiry, for particular applicant, where sole medical recourse for advice had been to work-based general medical practitioners – whether different medical specialist advice given too late to justify successful application

Limitation of Actions Act 1974, s 30, s 31, s 32
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 276, s 302(1)(a)(ii)
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd(No. 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219
Hertess v Adams [2011] QCA 73
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110
Weeks v Pioneer Building Products(Qld) Pty Ltd [2003] QSC 024
Wood v Glaxo Australia Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 431

COUNSEL:

B Charrington for the Applicant

M O’Sullivan for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Maurice Blackburn Lawyers for the Applicant

HWL Ebsworth Lawyers for the Respondent

Introduction

  1. By application filed 10 February 2011 the applicant/plaintiff seeks that the court make orders that, pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (the Act), the limitation period for the proceeding in question be extended until 10 February 2010, as well as such further or other orders as the court deems appropriate, including costs.  The extension sought is in relation to a claim for damages for personal injuries arising out of the applicant’s employment with the respondent/defendant concerning an incident that is alleged to have occurred on 17 January 2006.

  1. The applicant and his instructing solicitor both swore affidavits (the latter deposing twice).  Further, the respondent sought, and was granted, leave to cross-examine the applicant.  In its case, the respondent relied upon an affidavit of a solicitor in the employ of the solicitor for the defendant.  The deponent was Kyle John Norton.

  1. The Claim and Statement of Claim were filed 28 January 2011.  The solicitors’ affidavits exhibited relevant claims, letters and medical reports.

Issues

  1. While the applicant’s examination of the issues ranged much wider, the respondent’s primary approach was to identify the “critical question” as being: whether or not the applicant was in “possession” of a “critical mass of information” more than one year “prior to” 10 February 2010.  That question relied upon an examination of the use of that term in Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd(No. 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219, particularly in the decision of Keane JA, with whom Holmes JA and…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Switzer v Qantas Airways Limited 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
[2011] QDC 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Switzer v Qantas Airways Limited involved a dispute between the plaintiff, a former employee, and the defendant, an airline company. The plaintiff alleged that he developed a chronic disability as a result of exposure to certain substances while employed by the defendant. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim was time-barred by the limitation period. The plaintiff had consulted only general practitioners at work for medical advice, and it was not until much later that he sought specialist advice. The court had to determine if the plaintiff's increasing symptoms should have triggered an earlier inquiry into the causal relationship between his disability and his employment. Furthermore, the court needed to consider if the later specialist advice could justify the delay in filing the claim.

The court held that the plaintiff's initial reliance on general practitioners for medical advice was reasonable, given the circumstances of his employment. However, as his symptoms progressed, a reasonable person in his position should have sought specialist advice. The court concluded that the plaintiff's increasing symptoms should have prompted a more diligent inquiry, and that the specialist advice obtained later was insufficient to justify the delay. Nonetheless, the court found that the plaintiff's claim was not entirely time-barred and ordered an extension of the limitation period, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his claim.

The final orders of the court were to extend the limitation period for the proceeding to expire on 10 February 2010 and to reserve the issue of costs, subject to further submissions from the parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the period of limitation for the proceeding be extended so it expires on 10 February 2010.

2. Reserve the issue of costs, subject to submissions.

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.