A recent application brought by a worker in the Supreme Court of Queensland in the matter of AZX v The Roman Catholic Trust Corporation for the Diocese of Townsville [2025] QSC 59 has failed to extend the limitation period for commencing a personal injuries claim.
The decision highlights the test of whether a person knew or ought to have known a material fact is objective, and psychiatric injury alone does not excuse a failure to bring proceedings within time.
BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff, AZX, was 21 years old at the time of the incident and was working as a teacher in Queensland.
The Plaintiff alleges that on 3 February 1978, she suffered a psychiatric injury, including post-traumatic stress disorder, after an alleged sexual assault by a Brother Proctor.
Ordinarily and in accordance with s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (QLD), an injured worker must commence an action for damages arising from personal injury within three years (in this case, by 3 February 1981). The Plaintiff did not do so. Instead, the Plaintiff sought an extension of time pursuant to s31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.
Pursuant to s31(2), a party must satisfy the Court there is a material fact of a decisive character that was unknown to the Plaintiff until after a year prior to the expiration of the limitation period. A party must also satisfy the Court there is evidence to establish a right of action. If this is established, the court can then order an extension of one year from the date the Plaintiff had knowledge of the material fact.
Whether a material fact amounts to being of a “decisive character” rests on whether a reasonable person, knowing the material fact, and having taken the appropriate advice on the material fact, would regard the fact as showing:
- That an action would have reasonable prospects of success, resulting in an award of damages justifying bringing an action; and
- That the person bringing the action ought to, in their own interests and taking into account the person’s circumstances, bring an action.
To rely on the material fact, it is the Plaintiff’s responsibility to identify with specificity:
- What it says is the material fact which is relied upon;
- When the material fact became of a decisive character; and
- When the material fact of a decisive character came within the means of knowledge of the Plaintiff.
In this case, the Plaintiff had to prove that a material fact of a decisive character was not within her means of knowledge until after 31 May 2023 – 12 months prior to the Plaintiff applying to the court for an extension of her limitation period.
MATERIAL FACTS
In May 2021, the Plaintiff had seen a newspaper article concerning allegations that a Brother Proctor had sexually assaulted persons at another school. The Court acknowledged that as a result of the article, the Plaintiff contacted her retained solicitors.
The Plaintiff acknowledged a number of events that have impacted her throughout her lifetime to explain why she had failed to realise the impact the alleged assault had taken on her psychiatric wellbeing. These events include: the death of her mother (pre-dating the assault); looking after her father, who had Alzheimer’s; the circumstances of her first broken marriage; the ill health of her second husband; the loss of businesses and subsequent bankruptcies; a workplace back injury; and a breast cancer diagnosis.
The Plaintiff did not suggest in her evidence that she ever forgot or repressed the memories of the actual assault.
On 3 April 2023, the Plaintiff was informed by Dr Murray, a psychiatrist, that there was a direct connection between the alleged assault and her diagnosis. Relevantly, the Plaintiff knew Dr Murray had expressed an expert opinion that those psychiatric conditions were almost exclusively caused by the alleged assault. The Plaintiff did not dispute that this would have shown a reasonable person in her position would have taken steps to protect their right of action.
Initially, the Plaintiff’s Counsel sought to rely on two identified material facts said to be of a decisive character that came within her means of knowledge on 3 July 2023 and 8 April 2024; however, these were later abandoned.
The Plaintiff relied on a third and separate material fact of a “decisive character”. Though unclear exactly what date the Plaintiff was submitting that the material fact had become of a decisive character, this date was decided to be 8 April 2024, the date the Plaintiff gave instructions to commence proceedings against the Defendant.
THE DECISION
The Court accepted on the balance of probabilities, the Plaintiff, by 3 April 2023, had a “critical mass of material facts.” The Court assessed whether the Plaintiff had a “critical mass of material facts” by using the reasonable person test. Ultimately, this test concluded that a reasonable person would have taken steps to protect their right of action if:
- They had become aware of the expert opinion supporting the direct causal connection between the alleged assault and the identified psychiatric condition;
- They had appropriate advice; and
- They had taken into account her circumstances (incl. experiencing a number of psychiatric conditions for some time, the fact that none of these psychiatric conditions impacted the Plaintiff’s capacity to give instructions to her lawyers, on or about 3 April 2023 the Plaintiff gave instructions for her solicitors to proceed with alternative resolution processes, and the fact the Plaintiff had a preference to settle the proceedings by alternative resolution processes as opposed to litigation).
The Court found the Plaintiff did not identify with specificity the important issues of her case.
In reference to the Plaintiff’s emotional oscillation throughout the claim, His Honour observed distress does not provide evidence that there were some other impediments to the Plaintiff giving instructions to commence substantive proceedings.
OUTCOME
This case demonstrates that while the courts recognise the potential impact of psychiatric conditions on an individual’s awareness of material facts, it emphasises the importance of the Plaintiff’s actual knowledge to take steps to protect their right of action and their responsibility to identify with specificity material facts of a decisive character.
This article was written by Paralegal, Claudia Finch.