Watson v Poynter - [2003] QCA 224

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Watson v Poynter [2003] QCA 224

PARTIES:

DOREEN JOYCE WATSON
(applicant/appellant)
v
LANCE GABRIEL POYNTER
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 9291 of 2002
SC No 678 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

26 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where respondent guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm - where application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) filed outside limitation period - where appellant living in remote community - whether appellant's unawareness of ability to seek compensation was a "material factor of a decisive character" for the purposes of extending the limitation period

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where appellant suffered serious injuries as a result of the attack - where appellant unaware of neurological injury until after expiration of the limitation period - whether diagnosis of neurological injury was a "material factor of a decisive character"

Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 QdR 301, considered
Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 QdR 476, applied

Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Limited (1984) 154 CLR 234, applied

Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 QdR 325, applied

COUNSEL:

M Grant-Taylor SC, with A J Kimmins, for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
M D Hinson SC, with S A McLeod, for intervenor amicus
curiae

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey (Samford) for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the intervenor amicus curiae

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Davies will deliver his reasons first.

DAVIES JA: This is an appeal against a refusal to extend the limitation period for an application for compensation pursuant to the "Criminal Offence Victims Act".

The respondent was convicted and sentenced on 21 November 1997 on two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm against the present appellant on 25 February 1997. The limitation period within which to bring a claim under the ”Criminal Offence Victims Act" therefore expired on 25 November 2000. The application was, however, not commenced until 21 September 2001.

The appellant, then approximately 23 years of age, and the respondent lived in a de facto relationship but they had separated a month prior to the assault. On the relevant date the appellant had been drinking at her aunt's house. The respondent arrived at the house. The respondent grabbed the appellant by the hair and pulled her for some distance…

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.

Continue reading Watson v Poynter

Details

AGLC: Watson v Poynter [2003] QCA 224
Case: [2003] QCA 224
Decision Date: 26 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Watson v Poynter, the respondent was convicted of an assault occasioning bodily harm against the appellant. The appellant sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) outside the limitation period. The appellant lived in a remote community and was unaware of her right to seek compensation. The appellant also did not realise she had suffered a neurological injury until after the limitation period had expired. The court had to determine whether the appellant's lack of awareness of her rights and the neurological injury were "material factors of a decisive character" to extend the limitation period.

The primary legal issue in the case was whether the appellant's lack of awareness of her rights and the neurological injury were "material factors of a decisive character" to extend the limitation period. The court had to consider whether these factors were significant enough to warrant an extension of the limitation period. The court also had to determine if the respondent's conviction and the appellant's unawareness of her rights and injury were sufficient to justify an extension of the limitation period.

The court found that the appellant's lack of awareness of her rights and the neurological injury were not "material factors of a decisive character" to extend the limitation period. The court held that the appellant's lack of awareness of her rights and injury did not amount to a "material factor of a decisive character" as it was not an external factor that prevented her from seeking compensation. The court also held that the respondent's conviction and the appellant's unawareness of her rights and injury were not sufficient to justify an extension of the limitation period.

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the lower court. The appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed as it was filed outside the limitation period. The court held that the appellant's lack of awareness of her rights and the neurological injury were not "material factors of a decisive character" to extend the limitation period. The court also held that the respondent's conviction and the appellant's unawareness of her rights and injury were not sufficient to justify an extension of the limitation period.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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:	Watson v Poynter [2003] QCA 224
PARTIES:	DOREEN JOYCE WATSON (applicant/appellant) v LANCE GABRIEL POYNTER (respondent) ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND MINISTER FOR JUSTICE FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (intervenor)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 9291 of 2002 SC No 678 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal - Cairns Circuit
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	26 May 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where respondent guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm - where application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) filed outside limitation period - where appellant living in remote community - whether appellant's unawareness of ability to seek compensation was a "material factor of a decisive character" for the purposes of extending the limitation period LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION - ACTIONS TO RECOVER MONEY RECOVERABLE BY VIRTUE OF AN ENACTMENT - where appellant suffered serious injuries as a result of the attack - where appellant unaware of neurological injury until after expiration of the limitation period - whether diagnosis of neurological injury was a "material factor of a decisive character" Berg v Kruger Enterprises [1990] 2 QdR 301, considered Dick v University of Queensland [2000] 2 QdR 476, applied Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Limited (1984) 154 CLR 234, applied Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Ltd [1988] 2 QdR 325, applied
COUNSEL:	M Grant-Taylor SC, with A J Kimmins, for the appellant No appearance for the respondent M D Hinson SC, with S A McLeod, for intervenor amicus curiae
SOLICITORS:	Tony Bailey (Samford) for the appellant No appearance for the respondent C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the intervenor amicus curiae