Case v Colchester GR P/L [2001] NSWSC 528

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Case v Colchester GR P/L [2001] NSWSC 528 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 10296/2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 17 May 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 June 2001

Maryanne Case (Plaintiff) PARTIES : Colchester GR Pty Limited (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master Harrison

Mr D Wilson (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : Mr D Brogan (Defendant) Marsdens (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Bartier Perry (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Extension of limitation period - s 151D WCA LEGISLATION CITED : Workers Compensation Act 1987 Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524 CASES CITED : Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR; 139 ALR 1 Holt v Wynter [2000] NSWCA 143; (1999-2000) 49 NSWLR 128 Seib v Morton [2000] NSWCA 139, 26 June 2000 DECISION : (1) Leave for the plaintiff to commence court proceedings in respect of injuries suffered as a result of an accident which occurred on 15 November 1997 is refused; (2) The summons is dismissed; (3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs.

13

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER HARRISON

WEDNESDAY, 27 JUNE 2001

10296/2001 - MARYANNE CASE v COLCHESTER GR PTY LTD

JUDGMENT (Extension of limitation period - s 151D WCA)

1 MASTER: By summons filed 2 February 2001 the plaintiff seeks an order extending time within which to commence proceedings pursuant to s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the Act). The plaintiff relied on her affidavit sworn 10 January 2001 and the affidavit of her solicitor Elyse White sworn 11 January 2001. The defendant relied on the affidavit of Michele Franco sworn 30 March 2001. 2 At the outset it is appropriate that I record that I observed the plaintiff very carefully when she gave evidence and was cross examined. I found it very difficult to understand her evidence as it was like shifting sand. I shall refer to it in more detail later in this judgment. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff gave untruthful evidence and lacked credibility. The conundrum is whether the plaintiff was not being frank with the court or alternatively whether her recall was unclear due to the level of drugs she has been taking and still is taking to alleviate her pain. Currently she administers morphine through a pump in her stomach. Additionally she takes other painkillers. A recent medical report (Dr Gerald Glancey dated 15 May 2001) expressed the view that since the end of last year the plaintiff's level of functioning has been dramatically effected because she has been preoccupied with the breakdown of her marriage and has a sense of loss together with a related depressive disturbance. In particular the plaintiff's concentration and memory have been impaired. 3 The plaintiff's version of events is as follows.