Hoogendoorn v State of Queensland & Ors
[2022] QSC 43 · Jackson J
A man who was in prison from 2011 to 2021 wanted to sue the State of Queensland and the private prison operator Serco over sixteen things he said happened to him while locked up, including being kept out of a course, being put in an observation cell, exposure to an infectious cellmate, and an assault by another prisoner. He represented himself. Most of his complaints described emotional distress like stress, anxiety and frustration rather than a diagnosed psychiatric condition, and the court noted there was no medical evidence that he had suffered a recognisable psychiatric injury. Because many of the claims were out of time or had no arguable legal basis, the judge refused permission to start proceedings on those. The judge did allow five claims to move forward on a narrow point, letting the man continue despite having given his notice of claim late, since being in prison made it hard to lodge on time. The rest of the application was dismissed and he was ordered to pay Serco's costs.
Incident & injury
Alleged personal injuries (largely psychological) suffered over 16 claims while imprisoned from 2016-2020, arising from various alleged wrongs by prison officers/staff including non-enrolment in courses, accommodation decisions, failure to provide aids, exposure to infection and assault by another prisoner.
- Body regions
- Psychiatric, Psychiatric/psychological (alleged), Abdominal (colitis), Left shoulder, Nasal/ent
- Diagnoses
- Alleged stress, Anxiety, depression (no recognisable psychiatric injury established), Colitis, Nasal obstruction
- Location
- Southern Queensland Correctional Centre and other Queensland correctional centres
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 4 April 2022
- Claim type
- PIPA Public Liability
- Proceeding
- Interlocutory
- Plaintiff outcome
- Partial
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Prisoner
Outcome
Self-represented applicant (former prisoner) sought leave under s 43 PIPA to start proceedings on 16 alleged personal injury claims against the State and Serco, and authorisation under s 18(1)(c)(ii) PIPA for non-compliant notices of claim. Jackson J granted authorisation under s 18(1)(c)(ii) for five claims (9th, 11th, 12th, 15th, 16th) where notices of claim were given outside the 9-month period under s 9(3)(a). The balance of the application was dismissed, with applicant ordered to pay Serco's costs on the standard basis.
Key issues
Hoogendoorn v State of Queensland & Ors [2022] QSC 43
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.