Loading...
Queensland Judgments

beta

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Keioskie v Workcover Queensland

 

[2006] QSC 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

DUTNEY J

Application No 142 of 2006

DION KEIOSKIE

Applicant

and

 

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND

Respondent

CAIRNS

DATE 12/05/2006

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application inter alia for an extension of the limitation period within which the applicant is required to commence proceedings.

The applicant's case is that he suffered an injury at work on the 1st of January 2003 when a ladder on which he was working slipped causing him to fall and injure his back. The injury was a soft tissue injury.

According to the applicant's material the result of the accident was ongoing but intermittent back pain for about two years until in early May 2005 the applicant suffered a sufficient worsening of his symptoms to consult a Dr David Peterson in Townsville on the 25th of May.

Dr Peterson referred the applicant to Queensland X-ray for investigations and that investigation disclosed a narrowing of a disc L4-5 with spondylosis and a bulge at L4/S1. Dr Stark interpreted these results for the applicant's benefit by telling him that he had a permanent problem caused by the accident in 2003.

Until that time the applicant had been under the belief that what he had suffered was soft tissue damage and that it would ultimately not cause any serious consequences for his work career. He in fact had, it appears, very little if any time off between the accident and May of 2005.

In the circumstances I am satisfied that the discovery that the injury had its origin in disc pathology and was likely to be permanent constituted a material fact of a decisive nature for the purposes of section 31 of the Limitation of Action Act.

It seems therefore, in the absence of any evidence of prejudice which counsel for the respondent has fairly stated he cannot point to that the limitation period should be extended until at least the 25th of May 2006.

Accordingly I extend the period of limitation until that date. Having extended the limitation period it is common ground that I should grant leave pursuant to section 305 of the WorkCover Act to preserve the applicant's cause of action until such time as the preliminary steps have been completed.

HIS HONOUR: I therefore make an order in addition to the limitation period in terms of the draft which I have signed and placed with the papers.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Now, what about costs.

HIS HONOUR: The order for costs will be that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application limited to one day's hearing.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Dion Keioskie v Workcover Queensland

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Keioskie v Workcover Queensland

  • MNC:

    [2006] QSC 127

  • Court:

    QSC

  • Judge(s):

    Dutney J

  • Date:

    12 May 2006

Litigation History

No Litigation History

Appeal Status

No Status