SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Thompson v WorkCover Queensland [2011] QSC 197
PARTIES:
SHAUN MICHAEL THOMPSON
(Applicant)v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
ABN 40 577 162 756
(First Respondent)and
KQ OPERATIONS PTY LTD
ABN 57 113 087 782
(Second Respondent)FILE NO/S:
BS 866 of 2010
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
7 July 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 June 2011
JUDGE:
McMurdo J
ORDER:
The limitation period for the applicant’s cause of action, the subject of his Notice of Claim dated 25 February 2009, be extended until 2 September 2010.
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 – where WorkCover waived compliance of the applicant’s Notice of Claim on various conditions – where the applicant agreed to WorkCover’s conditions once the limitation period had expired – where the applicant contracted Q-fever at work – where most patients recover from Q-fever within two years – where the applicant’s Q-fever is a permanent condition – whether the court should order that the limitation period be extended – whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success to justify the bringing of an action under s 30(1)(b)(i) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 31
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 275, s 276, s 302
Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd (No 2) [2008] 2 Qd R 219, considered
Handover v Consolidated Meat Group Pty Ltd [2009] QSC 41, cited
Honour v Faminco Mining Services Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Faminco Trust (In Liquidation) & Anor [2009] QCA 352, citedCOUNSEL:
D Fraser QC with R Trotter, J Francis and RP Bridgman for the applicant.
K Holyoak for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:
Gall Stanfield & Smith for the applicant.
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the respondent.
The applicant seeks an extension of the limitation period for his proposed action for damages for personal injuries against his employer, which is the second respondent. In that employment, he was exposed to raw meat products but was given no protective clothing or masks and he was not immunised against Q-fever. He contracted Q-fever and his symptoms began on about 24 February 2006. He first sought medical attention on 2 March 2006 and it is common ground that the limitation period of three years began to run on that date.
The applicant’s proposed action is subject to the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the Compensation Act’). Section s 275(1) required him to give notice of his claim within the limitation period. But by s 276, WorkCover was entitled to waive compliance with the requirements of s 275. Section 276 provides:
“276 Noncompliance with s 275 and urgent proceedings
(1)The purpose of this section is to enable a claimant to avoid the need…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Thompson v WorkCover Queensland 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QSC 197
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues were whether the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success in his claim, which would justify extending the limitation period under section 30(1)(b)(i) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), and whether the applicant's knowledge of the material facts of decisive character occurred outside the limitation period. Given that the applicant's Q-fever developed into a permanent condition, unlike most patients who recover within two years, the court considered whether this exceptional circumstance warranted an extension.
The court concluded that the applicant had a reasonable prospect of success due to the unique nature of his Q-fever condition, which had not followed the typical recovery trajectory. The applicant’s lack of knowledge about the permanent nature of his condition until after the limitation period had expired was deemed a decisive factor. Consequently, the court found that the applicant had satisfied the criteria for extending the limitation period, leading to the order that the limitation period for the applicant’s cause of action be extended until 2 September 2010.
Orders
Orders of the court
The limitation period for the applicant’s cause of action, the subject of his Notice of Claim dated 25 February 2009, be extended until 2 September 2010.
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.