Wyatt v AAI Limited

Case [2021] QDC 188

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wyatt v AAI Limited [2021] QDC 188
PARTIES:

AUBREY WILLIAM WYATT
(Applicant)
v
AAI LIMITED T/AS SUNCORP INSURANCE (ACN 005 297 807)
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

3311/20

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2021

JUDGES:

Devereaux SC CJDC

ORDER:

1.   The application is allowed

2.   I will receive submissions in writing from the parties as to the form or orders and costs.

CATCHWORDS:

Where the plaintiff seeks to pursue a personal injury claim in respect of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7 October 2016 –where the plaintiff applies pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) for an extension of the limitation period – where the Court may only extend the limitation period by 12 months – where the applicant began to experience symptoms of the psychiatric injury upon which his claim is based approximately 6 months after the accident – where the plaintiff served his Notice of Claim on 1 April 2020 – where the respondent submits that the plaintiff had knowledge of sufficient facts to support a cause of action before 1 April 2019 – whether the applicant learned a material fact of a decisive character after the expiration of the limitation period

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 30, s 31

Berg v Kruger Enterprises (Division of Besser Qld Ltd) [1990] 2 Qd R 301, cited

Healy v Femdale Pty Ltd CA No 37 of 1992, cited

HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2009] QCA 168, cited
Moriarty v Sunbeam Corporation Limited [1988] 2 Qd R 325, cited
Pizer v Ansett Australia Limited [1998] QCA 298, cited
Sugden v Crawford [1989] 1 Qd R 683, cited
Thompson v DP World Australia [2011] QSC 406, cited
Watters v Queensland Rail [2000] QCA 51, cited

COUNSEL: 

SOLICITORS:

MT O’Sullivan for the applicant
ST Farrell for the respondent

Shine Lawyers for the applicant
AAI Limited trading as Suncorp Insurance for the respondent

  1. The applicant claims to have a right of action against the respondent. Apart from a defence founded on the expiration of the period of limitation, this is not contested. The applicant seeks an order extending the period of limitation under s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (‘the Act’). He claims that a material fact relating to the right of action, namely the nature and extent of the injury,[1] was not within his means of knowledge until after the commencement of the year preceding the expiration of the period.  The applicant claims the material fact was of a decisive character. The respondent says it was not and also says the fact was within the applicant’s means of knowledge within the relevant time.

    [1] Limitation of Actions Act 1974 s. 30(1)(a)(iv).

  2. By s. 30(1)(b) of the Act, material facts relating to a right of action of a decisive character if if…

Continue reading Wyatt v AAI Limited

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wyatt v AAI Limited [2021] QDC 188
Case
[2021] QDC 188
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wyatt sought to pursue a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 7 October 2016. Wyatt applied for an extension of the limitation period pursuant to s 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). Wyatt had served his Notice of Claim on 1 April 2020, approximately 6 months after he began to experience symptoms of the psychiatric injury upon which his claim was based. The Court was required to decide whether Wyatt learned a material fact of a decisive character after the expiration of the limitation period.

The Court considered Wyatt's evidence that he had no knowledge of his psychiatric injury until approximately 6 months after the accident. The Court found that Wyatt had no knowledge of the full extent of his psychiatric injury until he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder in 2018. The Court held that Wyatt had not learned a material fact of a decisive character after the expiration of the limitation period. The Court allowed Wyatt's application for an extension of time.

The Court ordered that Wyatt's application was allowed and that submissions in writing from the parties as to the form of orders and costs would be received.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is allowed

2. I will receive submissions in writing from the parties as to the form or orders and costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Under cross-examination at the hearing of the application, the applicant agreed he lodged an application with WorkCover immediately after the accident, describing his injury as “psychological system in general, short term shock from a disturbing situation”, but said the words used were written by his GP. His own description was “emotionally disturbing”. He confirmed he worked for about 6 months before increasing symptoms interfered. He agreed he consulted doctors on numerous occasions through to 2020 and had suffered symptoms from 6 months after the accident, reopening his WorkCover claim in September 2017. His psychological condition deteriorated during 2017. He consulted Dr Gilbert from September 2017. Dr Gilbert diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder and increased his medications. The applicant acknowledged his symptoms in the second half of 2018, after his return to work for 12 hours a week. Dr Yim discussed Dr Harding’s report with him on 14 November 2018. The applicant insisted that he was not told he had a permanent injury - he was never told he would not recover. He did not recall being advised by Dr Yim that he might never be 100 per cent well. His focus had been on recovery and getting back to work.Medical evidence The medical material before the Court includes the following:Independent Medical Examination Report of Dr Harding, 8 November 2018 Dr Harding examined the applicant at the request of WorkCover Queensland. Dr Harding diagnosed the applicant with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder complicated by the development of a Major Depression with Melancholia, ‘significantly affecting his ability to function both in the workplace and at home’. Noting that he had received appropriate treatment to date she considered he required treatment of increased intensity. She characterised the applicant as ‘ultimately likely to have a good prognosis given his high premorbid functioning’. Dr Harding thought the applicant had ‘a very tenuous capacity to be working at all at present’, although he was ‘demonstrating the capacity to work 12 hours per week in suitable duties’. She considered his condition ‘likely to considerably improve with further medical treatment or hospitalisation’.Medical Assessment Tribunal The MAT decision of 24 January 2020 includes clinical evaluations and findings about the applicant’s injury. The report noted that the applicant had resumed full-time work and was performing higher duties as Head of the Department. The tribunal considered the applicant’s symptoms to be consistent with a diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder and characterised the condition as stable and stationary. While noting the applicant had no employability deficit, the Tribunal found that his injury amounted to a 5% permanent impairment. Independent Medico Legal Report of Dr Caniato 16 July 2020 On 18 June 2020 Dr Riccardo Caniato conducted a medico-legal assessment of the applicant at the request of his solicitors. Dr Caniato affirmed the diagnosis of Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder with melancholia, expressing the view that his major depression ‘is in partial remission’. Dr Caniato reported that ‘it is unclear’ whether the applicant’s employment is ‘sustainable over the long term’, and noted that his injury ‘has resulted in long periods of time off work, failing to advance in his career, and reduced efficacy and enjoyment’. Dr Caniato finds that the applicant’s injuries ‘were directly caused by the accident’.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.