Tregelles-Fox v WorkCover Queensland

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Tregelles-Fox v WorkCover Queensland [2010] QSC 288

PARTIES:

PAUL JOHN TREGELLES-FOX
(plaintiff)
v
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BS 12252 of 2008

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

6 August 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 May 2010

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

1.    The application is dismissed.

2.    I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff has applied for an extension of the limitation period relating to his claim for personal injuries said to have been suffered in a workplace incident in 1979 – where the plaintiff submits that he ought to have an extension of time as a material fact of a decisive character only came within his knowledge when he received a specialist’s report in July 2008 – whether the limitation period ought to be extended

Limitations of Actions Act 1974, Qld, ss 30, 31
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 428

Baillie v Creber [2010] QSC 52, cited
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited
Gillespie v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 316, cited Healy v Femdale [1993] QCA 210, applied
Kambarbakis v G & L Scaffold Contracting Pty Ltd [2008] QCA 262 , cited
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited
NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, cited
Spain v Dipompo Jacs Constructions Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 323, cited
Van der Merwe v Arnotts Biscuits [2010] QSC 145, cited
Watters v Queensland Rail [2001] 1 Qd R 448; [2000] QCA 51, cited

COUNSEL:

E Mac Giolla Ri for the plaintiff
R Morton for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Ryan Lawyers for the plaintiff
Corrs Chambers Westgarth for the defendant

  1. The plaintiff has applied under s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (“LAA”) for an extension of the limitation period relating to his claim for personal injuries said to have been suffered in a workplace incident on 29 November 1979.  The extension sought is to 12 months after 21 June 2008.

  1. The plaintiff’s claim and statement of claim were filed on 4 December 2008.  He seeks damages for “negligence and/or breach of contract” by his employer.  In brief, the statement of claim alleges the following:

(a)That as at 29 November 1979 the plaintiff was employed by ANI Sargeants as a mechanic;

(b)That he was required to carry out his employment at construction sites and at his employer’s premises;

(c)That on 29 November 1979, while working at his employer’s Sherwood plant, he was instructed to undertake work on a Coles crane and, while doing so, a co-worker slewed the crane, causing the plaintiff to trip on welding leads and fall about 14 feet to the concrete floor;

(d)That as a result of this incident the plaintiff suffered…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tregelles-Fox 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
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] QSC 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Tregelles-Fox v WorkCover Queensland, the plaintiff sought an extension of the limitation period in relation to a claim for personal injuries arising from a workplace incident in 1979. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, with the appeal against a decision of the District Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim should be extended due to the late discovery of a material fact.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's knowledge of a material fact of decisive character, which he claimed to have only come to light upon receiving a specialist’s report in July 2008, justified an extension of the limitation period. The court needed to weigh the principles of fairness and justice against the statutory requirements of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The plaintiff argued that the statutory provisions should be interpreted to allow for extensions in circumstances where justice demands it, despite the strict time limits prescribed by law.

The court concluded that the statutory provisions did not permit an extension of the limitation period in the circumstances presented. The decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory language and the established legal principles regarding limitation periods in personal injury claims. The court found that the statutory framework did not provide for extensions based on the late discovery of a material fact, especially when such fact should have been ascertainable earlier with reasonable diligence. The court held that the application for an extension was not permissible under the applicable law.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the matter was remitted to the District Court. The court also noted that it would hear the parties regarding the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. I will hear the parties as to 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.