Taylor v Industrial Galvanizers Corporation Pty Ltd

[2005] QDC 318

[2005] QDC 318

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No BD 3790 of 2005

GEORGE ANTHONY TAYLOR	Applicant
and
INDUSTRIAL GALVANIZERS CORPORATION	Respondent
PTY LTD ACN 000 545 415
BRISBANE ..DATE 13/10/2005
ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 p.43 - application for leave to start a proceedings (subject to a stay thereafter until the Act's requirements were met) - whether limitation period was about to expire depended on whether a cause of action arose on the first day of the plaintiff's employment at premises adjacent to the defendant's, claimed to be the source of injurious fumes.

WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings.

13102005 T02/VC2 M/T CMS114/2005 (Robin DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: The originating application before the Court	1
seeks the following orders:

1. That the applicant be granted leave to commence

proceedings against the respondent for damages for

personal injuries arising out of an incident that	10
occurred over a period of time commencing 14 October 2002 pursuant to section 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (the Act);

2. That subject to any relaxation ordered by a Court such

proceedings be stayed pending compliance by the parties	20
with Chapter 2 Part 1 of the Act;

3. No order as to costs of and incidental to this

application.

In the event those are the orders the Court makes. The	30
unusual circumstances which induced the respondent not to
consent, as frequently happens in similar section 43
applications on the eve of expiration of the limitation
period, is that the injury the applicant complains of is
attributed by him to exposure to fumes generated by the	40
respondent's activities. The 14th of October 2002 is the date when the applicant's employment at premises next door to the respondents began.
I think it is wholly reasonable for the applicant to want to	50

get proceedings on foot. There is plainly a risk that the
evidence might be that from the very first exposure to such
fumes Mr Taylor sustained significant injury. It certainly is
13102005 T02/VC2 M/T CMS114/2005 (Robin DCJ) 2 ORDER 60

not clear that his cause of action arose substantially later	1
in a way that means he is free of limitations concerns.
Mr Digman had contemplated seeking costs against the respondent because of its failure to concede the application

10

early enough to save costs today. The Court is spared having
to make a judgment about that because Mr Digman has in the end
indicated he is content with orders in terms of the

originating application which, as stated, the Court makes.

20

-----

30

40

50

3 ORDER 60