• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Hemmant's List Hemmant's List

0735053969
Menu
Menu
  • About
    • The story of Hemmant and Lord Atkin
    • How does the list work?
    • How does a barrister join the list?
    • The Clerk
    • Emerging Art Program
    • Equitable Briefing
    • Former List Members (Judicial Appointments)
  • Barristers
  • Mediators & Arbitrators
  • Mediation Centre
  • Areas of Practice
      • Administrative & Public Law
      • Alternative Dispute Resolution
      • Appellate
      • Civil Litigation
      • Commercial Law
      • Crime
      • Employment & Industrial Relations
      • Equity & Trusts
      • Estate Law
      • Family Law
      • Human rights law
      • Inquests & Inquiries
      • Intellectual property law
      • International law
      • Marine law
      • Medical Negligence
      • Native Title Law
      • Personal Injuries and Health Law
      • Property Law
      • Resources, Construction & Infrastructure Law
      • Taxation Law
  • NEWS

NEWS

NO DUTY OF CARE, NO MATERIAL FACT OF A DECISIVE CHARACTER AND DISCRETION AGAINST EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD

October 23, 2018

Geoffrey Diehm QC

List member Geoffrey Diehm QC appeared for the Respondent in Blows v Townsville City Council [2018] QSC 234.

The Respondent employed the Applicant for 20 years as a parking unit officer. In June 2014 the Respondent gave the Applicant a show cause letter, and he was subsequently dismissed for purported misconduct later in June 2014.  The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission declared in June 2016 that the termination was an unfair dismissal. In October 2017 the General Medical Assessment Tribunal diagnosed him as having had an aggravation of a depressive disorder.  The Applicant applied for assessment in March 2017 and was issued a Notice of Assessment (“NOA”) in November 2017 assessing him as having a whole person impairment of 6%.

Douglas J first examined whether the duty contended for existed. The Respondent relied on the case of State of New South Wales v Paige (2002) 60 NSWLR 371, which was then applied in Govier v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) [2017] QCA 12. Paige discussed whether providing a safe system of work encompassed providing a safe system of investigations and discipline.  The proposed duty was described as inconsistent with Commonwealth and State regulation of unfair dismissal in Australia.  His Honour held that there was no relevant duty of care.

The Applicant claimed the limitation period expired in November 2018, arguing that the NOA was a material fact for the purposes of s.31(2)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act  since, in assessing his impairment as more than 5%, it created an entitlement for him to sue for common law damages.  However, he only applied for the NOA two months before the expiration of time when, as the Respondent argued, he could have received the NOA within the ordinary time limit had he requested it earlier, or protected his limitation period under s.302 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 by requesting it six months before the expiration of the time period in June.  Given that he was legally represented from the outset, and first saw a doctor in July 2014, the delay in obtaining an NOA had not been explained.

Douglas J also considered whether to exercise his discretion under s.31(2)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 and concluded there was nothing to support his doing so.

The application was dismissed.

See the judgment here: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QSC/2018/234

Share
  • Linkedin
  • Facebook
  • Gmail

Contact the Clerk

Hemmant's List Centre Level 6 Santos Place 32 Turbot Street Brisbane QLD 4000
+61 7 3505 3969 admin@hemmantslist.com.au
Submit a Briefing Request   Online Briefing
LinkedIn

Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

© 2025 Hemmant's List
  • Facility Bookings
  • Privacy Policy
  • Sitemap
ABN 87 612 554 551
Web Design by iCreate Advertising