Wrightson v State of Queensland - [2004] QSC 218

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wrightson v. State of Queensland [2004] QSC 218

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY JAMES WRIGHTSON
(plaintiff)
v.
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant)

FILE NO:

11522 of 2001

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDINGS:

Application and cross-application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

22 June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 April 2004

JUDGE:

Helman J.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS – MATERIAL FACTS OF DECISIVE CHARACTER

Limitation of Actions Act 1974, ss. 30(1)(b)(ii), 31(2)(a) and 31(2)(b)
Police Service Administration Act 1990, s. 8.3
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, rule 293

Limitation Act 1969 (N.S.W.), s. 57(1)(c)(ii)

Royal North Shore Hospital v. Henderson (1986) 7 N.S.W.L.R. 283

COUNSEL:

Mr D.B. Fraser Q.C. and Mr G.R. Mullins for the plaintiff
Mr D.O.J. North S.C. and Mr J.B. Rolls for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Gilshenan & Luton for the plaintiff
Mr C.W. Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the defendant

There are two applications before the court in this proceeding
. The plaintiff, a development control officer employed by the Redland Shire Council and former police officer sought, by a claim filed on 20 December 2001, $500,000 damages for the negligence, breach of contract, and/or breach of statutory duty of the defendant, its employees or agents occasioning him personal injury. On 24 October 2003 the defendant applied for judgment under rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999; and on 20 November 2003 the plaintiff applied for an order, pursuant to s. 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974, that the time for commencing his claim be extended to 20 December 2001. The defendant in its defence filed on

11 March 2003 had pleaded inter alia that the plaintiff’s claim was statute-barred. It was agreed by the parties that there was no impediment to my determining the limitation question on an interlocutory application.

On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr Fraser conceded that if the plaintiff’s application failed, the defendant’s should succeed. The argument before me was confined to the issues on the plaintiff’s application. It was common ground that at least from 1997 the plaintiff, now thirty-four years old, was continuously ill although his symptoms fluctuated from time to time, and that the limitation period applicable to the plaintiff’s claim expired in late 2000.

In an affidavit filed on 18 March 2004 the plaintiff swore: that after attending the Queensland Police Academy he was sworn in as a police officer in November 1990, and that after performing various ordinary police duties at Rockhampton, Manly, and Chandler, he was on active duty as a covert ‘operative’ from on or about

30 November 1994 until late 1996. After that he took leave for two months, and then from March to late October 1997 he performed general duties as a uniformed officer at the Cabalaba Police Station, and from late 1997 he performed traffic duties while attached to the Chandler Police Station. He suffered from…

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 Wrightson 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: [2004] QSC 218
Decision Date: 22 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wrightson v State of Queensland was heard before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Mr. Wrightson, sought damages for personal injuries sustained during a motor vehicle accident. The defendant, the State of Queensland, argued that the claim was time-barred as it was not brought within the statutory limitation period. The central issue before the court was whether the period within which Mr. Wrightson could initiate proceedings was appropriately extended under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

The court needed to determine if the statutory bar on Mr. Wrightson's claim was postponed due to his lack of knowledge of material facts which were of decisive character. The primary legal question was whether the plaintiff's ignorance of these facts justified an extension of the limitation period. The court examined the circumstances surrounding Mr. Wrightson's discovery of the material facts and assessed whether his lack of knowledge was reasonable and justifiable.

In its decision, the Supreme Court of Queensland held that the plaintiff's ignorance of the material facts was indeed of decisive character and justified an extension of the limitation period. The court found that Mr. Wrightson's lack of knowledge was not attributable to any want of diligence on his part. Consequently, the court determined that the statutory bar on the claim was postponed until such time as Mr. Wrightson became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the material facts. The court granted the plaintiff permission to bring his claim within the extended period.

The final orders of the court were that the statutory limitation period for Mr. Wrightson's claim was extended, and he was permitted to bring his proceedings within the new timeframe. The court also ordered that the defendant bear the costs of the proceedings.

Orders