Wolfe v State of Queensland - [2008] QCA 113

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wolfe v State of Queensland [2008] QCA 113

PARTIES:

PATRICK WOLFE
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10318 of 2007
DC No 3476 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 April 2008

JUDGES:

Keane and Muir JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Leave to appeal granted1.

Appeal allowed2.

Orders of the District Court set aside; and in lieu thereof it is ordered that the application for the amendment is refused3.

Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the application below and of the application and appeal in this Court to be assessed on the standard basis4.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL – APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION – AMENDMENT OF WRIT OF PLEADING – WHERE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED – where the respondent applied for leave to amend his statement of claim after the expiry of the relevant limitation period – whether the amendment effectively resulted in the pleading of a new cause of action which does not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the cause of action already plead – whether the amendment was permissible in accordance with r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 376(4)

Borsato v Campbell & Ors [2006] QSC 191, cited
Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd[2007] QCA 364, applied
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
Pianta v BHP Australia Coal Limited [1996] 1 Qd R 65; [1995] QCA 53, applied
Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431; [1998] HCA 5, applied
Yi v The Service Arena Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 400, applied

COUNSEL:

G W Diehm for the appellant
R C Morton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
McInnes Wilson for the respondent

KEANE JA: Mr Wolfe is the plaintiff in an action for damages for personal injury suffered by him on 27 December 1999 when he crashed into a tree after losing control of the steering of his vehicle when it hit welts on the surface of the Cunningham Highway ("the highway") approximately 10 kilometres east of Goondiwindi. Mr Wolfe's action was commenced in 2002.

Mr Wolfe brings his action against the State of Queensland as the entity responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of the highway.

On 19 October 2007 the learned primary judge allowed Mr Wolfe's application to amend his statement of claim to add an allegation that his injuries were caused by the negligence of the State's servants or agents, in that they failed "on maintenance of the road…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wolfe v State of 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: [2008] QCA 113
Decision Date: 9 May 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wolfe v State of Queensland, the appellant, Wolfe, initiated legal proceedings against the respondent, the State of Queensland, challenging the denial of his application to amend his statement of claim after the relevant limitation period had expired. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the District Court's decision being appealed. The central legal issue before the Court was whether the amendment to the statement of claim, which sought to plead a new cause of action, was permissible under rule 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the new cause of action arose out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the original cause of action.

The Court considered the relevant provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), focusing on the distinction between amendments that relate to the same cause of action and those that introduce a new cause of action. It was determined that the amendment in question sought to plead a new cause of action which did not arise from the same facts or substantially the same facts as the initial cause of action. The Court found that such an amendment was not permissible under rule 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) as it would result in the pleading of a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's orders, and refused the respondent's application for leave to amend his statement of claim. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the application below and of the application and appeal in this Court, to be assessed on the standard basis. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to limitation periods and the need for amendments to be closely related to the original cause of action to be permissible.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal granted1.

Appeal allowed2.

Orders of the District Court set aside; and in lieu thereof it is ordered that the application for the amendment is refused3.

Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the application below and of the application and appeal in this Court to be assessed on the standard basis4.

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:	Wolfe v State of Queensland [2008] QCA 113
PARTIES:	PATRICK WOLFE (plaintiff/respondent) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10318 of 2007 DC No 3476 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 May 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 April 2008
JUDGES:	Keane and Muir JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Leave to appeal granted1. Appeal allowed2. Orders of the District Court set aside; and in lieu thereof it is ordered that the application for the amendment is refused3. Respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the application below and of the application and appeal in this Court to be assessed on the standard basis4.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL – APPLICATION OF STATUTES OF LIMITATION – AMENDMENT OF WRIT OF PLEADING – WHERE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED – where the respondent applied for leave to amend his statement of claim after the expiry of the relevant limitation period – whether the amendment effectively resulted in the pleading of a new cause of action which does not arise out of the same facts or substantially the same facts as the cause of action already plead – whether the amendment was permissible in accordance with r 376(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118(3) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 376(4) Borsato v Campbell & Ors [2006] QSC 191, cited Castillon v P&O Ports Ltd[2007] QCA 364, applied House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied Pianta v BHP Australia Coal Limited [1996] 1 Qd R 65; [1995] QCA 53, applied Romeo v Conservation Commission of the Northern Territory (1998) 192 CLR 431; [1998] HCA 5, applied Yi v The Service Arena Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 400, applied
COUNSEL:	G W Diehm for the appellant R C Morton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the appellant McInnes Wilson for the respondent