Wrightson v State of Queensland - [2005] QCA 367

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wrightson v State of Qld [2005] QCA 367

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY JAMES WRIGHTSON
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
STATE OF QUEENSLAND
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6250 of 2004
SC No 11522 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 July 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams and Jerrard JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed
2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis

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 – respondent formerly employed as a covert police operative – respondent developed psychiatric disorder and applied for retirement on medical grounds on 4 October 2000 – appellant granted medical retirement application from 9 March 2001 – respondent commenced personal injuries claim against the appellant on 20 December 2001 – appellant asserted that the respondent’s claim was statute-barred and respondent applied for an extension of time under s 31 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – judge granted respondent an extension of time on the basis that a material fact of a decisive character relating to the action was not within the respondent’s means of knowledge until after the expiration of the limitation period – whether the appellant’s acceptance of the retirement application constituted a new “material fact of a decisive character” thereby allowing an extension of the limitation period

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 57B(1), s 58(2)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 31
Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 8.1, s 8.2,
s 8.3

Bougoure v State of Qld [2004] QCA 485; Appeal No 6094 of 2004, 17 December 2004, cited
Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231, cited
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360, cited
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, cited
Reeman v State of Qld [2004] QCA 484; Appeal No 8239 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered
Reeman v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 285; SC No 6649 of 2002, 9 September 2004, considered
Russell v State of Qld [2004] QCA 370; Appeal No 4264 of 2004, 8 October 2004, cited
Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd v Mills (1987) 163 CLR 628, cited
Stephenson v State of Qld [2004] QCA 483; Appeal No 7621 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered
Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 226; SC No 11521 of 2001, 5 August 2004, considered
Watters v Queensland Rail [2000] QCA 51; [2001] 1 Qd R 448, cited

COUNSEL:

D O J North SC, with J B Rolls, for the appellant
D…

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: [2005] QCA 367
Decision Date: 30 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Wrightson v State of Queensland was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The respondent, a former covert police operative, had developed a psychiatric disorder and applied for medical retirement on 4 October 2000. The appellant, the State of Queensland, granted the respondent’s application for retirement from 9 March 2001. The respondent subsequently commenced a personal injuries claim against the appellant on 20 December 2001. The appellant contended that the claim was barred by limitation periods under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The respondent applied for an extension of time to bring the claim, which the trial judge granted, finding that material facts decisive to the respondent’s cause of action were not known to the respondent until after the limitation period had expired.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's acceptance of the respondent's retirement application constituted a new "material fact of a decisive character" that justified extending the limitation period. The court examined whether the respondent's cause of action accrued when the respondent first became aware of the material facts or whether the cause of action accrued at a later date. The court also considered the meaning of "material facts of a decisive character" and whether the acceptance of the retirement application could be considered a new material fact that was not within the respondent's means of knowledge until the acceptance date.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent’s cause of action accrued when the respondent became aware of the material facts leading to the psychiatric disorder, not when the appellant accepted the retirement application. The court held that the acceptance of the retirement application was not a new material fact of a decisive character that could justify an extension of the limitation period. The court concluded that the respondent had knowledge of the material facts sufficient to bring the claim within the limitation period, and thus, the trial judge erred in granting an extension of time. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed

2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis

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:	Wrightson v State of Qld [2005] QCA 367
PARTIES:	TIMOTHY JAMES WRIGHTSON (plaintiff/respondent) v STATE OF QUEENSLAND (defendant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6250 of 2004 SC No 11522 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Personal Injury
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 July 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams and Jerrard JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed 2. Appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be assessed on the standard basis
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 – respondent formerly employed as a covert police operative – respondent developed psychiatric disorder and applied for retirement on medical grounds on 4 October 2000 – appellant granted medical retirement application from 9 March 2001 – respondent commenced personal injuries claim against the appellant on 20 December 2001 – appellant asserted that the respondent’s claim was statute-barred and respondent applied for an extension of time under s 31 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – judge granted respondent an extension of time on the basis that a material fact of a decisive character relating to the action was not within the respondent’s means of knowledge until after the expiration of the limitation period – whether the appellant’s acceptance of the retirement application constituted a new “material fact of a decisive character” thereby allowing an extension of the limitation period Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 57B(1), s 58(2) Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 30, s 31 Police Service Administration Act 1990 (Qld), s 8.1, s 8.2, s 8.3 Bougoure v State of Qld [2004] QCA 485; Appeal No 6094 of 2004, 17 December 2004, cited Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v Grand Shipping SA (1991) 173 CLR 231, cited Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd v Waugh (1988) 14 NSWLR 360, cited Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234, cited Reeman v State of Qld [2004] QCA 484; Appeal No 8239 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered Reeman v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 285; SC No 6649 of 2002, 9 September 2004, considered Russell v State of Qld [2004] QCA 370; Appeal No 4264 of 2004, 8 October 2004, cited Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd v Mills (1987) 163 CLR 628, cited Stephenson v State of Qld [2004] QCA 483; Appeal No 7621 of 2004, 17 December 2004, considered Stephenson v State of Queensland [2004] QSC 226; SC No 11521 of 2001, 5 August 2004, considered Watters v Queensland Rail [2000] QCA 51; [2001] 1 Qd R 448, cited
COUNSEL:	D O J North SC, with J B Rolls, for the appellant D…