Williams v Martyn - [2022] QDC 206

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Martyn [2022] QDC 206.

PARTIES:

ERIN LILLIAN JANE WILLIAMS

(Applicant)

v

MARK ROBERT MARTYN

(Respondent)

FILE NO:
108 of 2022

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Extension of Period of Limitation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2022

JUDGE:

Coker DCJ

ORDER:

Leave is granted:

1. That the period of limitation for the action be extended pursuant to section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 so as to conclude on the 7^th of April 2023;

2. That pursuant to section 39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”), that the applicant has remedied the noncompliance or authorises further proceedings based on the claim despite the noncompliance;

3.   That each party have liberty to apply by giving three business days notice in writing to the other party; and

4.   That there be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE CHARACTER – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – where the Appellant as a child was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 – where the Appellant attained her majority on 18/6/2018 – where an application for an extension of the period of limitations was filed on 19/7/2022 – where there was agreement between the Appellant and the 2^nd Respondent as to there being a material fact of a decisive nature – whether the material facts of a character came to or should have come to the knowledge of the Appellant at an earlier time – whether there would be prejudice to the 2^nd Respondent so as to affect a fair trial if leave were granted for an extension of time – whether time should be extended

LEGISLATION:

Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 29, 31.
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 39(5)(c).

CASES:

Ballingal v WorkCover Queensland & Ors [2017] QSC 133, cited.
Hopkins v State of Queensland [2004] QDC 021, considered
NF v The State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, cited.
Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, cited.
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited.
Young v The Commissioner of Fire Service [1997] QSC 43, considered.
Campbell v United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd [1966] Qd R 465, cited.
Cowie v State Electricity Commission of Victoria [1964] VR 788, considered.

COUNSEL:

Trevino. J QC for the Applicant
Deaves. S QC for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:
Connolly Suthers Lawyers for the Applicant
Jensen McConaghy for the Respondent

Introduction

On the 19^th of July 2022, an application was filed in this Court by Erin Lillian Jane Williams. For convenience, I shall refer to her during these reasons as the applicant. The orders that were sought in the application were in these terms:
1. That the period of limitation for the action be extended pursuant to section 31 of the Limitations of Actions Act

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 Williams v Martyn

Details

AGLC: Williams v Martyn [2022] QDC 206
Case: [2022] QDC 206
Decision Date: 7 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Court involved Williams, the Appellant, against Martyn, the 2nd Respondent, regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2014 when Williams was a minor. Williams, who attained majority on 18 June 2018, filed an application for an extension of the limitation period on 19 July 2022. The primary dispute centred on whether the material facts that should have led to Williams's knowledge of her injury claims came to her attention at an earlier time and if granting the extension would prejudice the 2nd Respondent to the extent of affecting a fair trial.

The central legal issues the Court had to decide were whether the material facts of a decisive nature came to Williams's attention or should have come to her attention earlier and whether granting the extension would result in prejudice to the 2nd Respondent, thereby affecting the fairness of the trial. The Court had to consider whether the Appellant had remedied the noncompliance or authorised further proceedings based on the claim despite the noncompliance under section 39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.

In addressing these issues, the Court found that there was agreement between the parties that a material fact of decisive nature existed. The Court reasoned that there was no prejudice to the 2nd Respondent if the extension was granted. Consequently, the Court held that the period of limitation for the action should be extended pursuant to section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, concluding on 7 April 2023. Additionally, the Court found that the Appellant had remedied the noncompliance or authorised further proceedings based on the claim despite the noncompliance under section 39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The Court also granted each party the liberty to apply by giving three business days notice in writing to the other party and made no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave is granted:

1. That the period of limitation for the action be extended pursuant to section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 so as to conclude on the 7th of April 2023;

2. That pursuant to section 39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”), that the applicant has remedied the noncompliance or authorises further proceedings based on the claim despite the noncompliance;

3. That each party have liberty to apply by giving three business days notice in writing to the other party; and

4. That there be no order 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.

CITATION:	Williams v Martyn [2022] QDC 206.
PARTIES:	ERIN LILLIAN JANE WILLIAMS (Applicant) v MARK ROBERT MARTYN (Respondent)
FILE NO:	108 of 2022
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Extension of Period of Limitation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2022
JUDGE:	Coker DCJ
ORDER:	Leave is granted: 1. That the period of limitation for the action be extended pursuant to section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 so as to conclude on the 7^th of April 2023; 2. That pursuant to section 39(5)(c) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”), that the applicant has remedied the noncompliance or authorises further proceedings based on the claim despite the noncompliance; 3. That each party have liberty to apply by giving three business days notice in writing to the other party; and 4. That there be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF A DECISIVE CHARACTER – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – where the Appellant as a child was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014 – where the Appellant attained her majority on 18/6/2018 – where an application for an extension of the period of limitations was filed on 19/7/2022 – where there was agreement between the Appellant and the 2^nd Respondent as to there being a material fact of a decisive nature – whether the material facts of a character came to or should have come to the knowledge of the Appellant at an earlier time – whether there would be prejudice to the 2^nd Respondent so as to affect a fair trial if leave were granted for an extension of time – whether time should be extended
LEGISLATION:	Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 29, 31. Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s 39(5)(c).
CASES:	Ballingal v WorkCover Queensland & Ors [2017] QSC 133, cited. Hopkins v State of Queensland [2004] QDC 021, considered NF v The State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110, cited. Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd [1993] QCA 210, cited. Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited. Young v The Commissioner of Fire Service [1997] QSC 43, considered. Campbell v United Pacific Transport Pty Ltd [1966] Qd R 465, cited. Cowie v State Electricity Commission of Victoria [1964] VR 788, considered.
COUNSEL:	Trevino. J QC for the Applicant Deaves. S QC for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Connolly Suthers Lawyers for the Applicant Jensen McConaghy for the Respondent