Adam Oliver John Whiteford v Ropolo Services Pty Limited (ACN 088 360 614)

The plaintiff, Adam Oliver John Whiteford, brought an action against Ropolo Services Pty Limited (Ropolo) for personal injury sustained in the course of his employment. The claim was for damages that arose out of an incident which occurred on 27 February 2006. Ropolo had previously accepted the plaintiff's workers' compensation claim, but the plaintiff commenced the action against Ropolo on 31 May 2007, which was fifteen months after the statutory limitation period had expired. The primary issue before the court was whether the statutory limitation period should be extended under section 35A of the Limitation Act 1969 (Qld), considering the circumstances of the case and the impact on the defendant.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions and case law to determine whether the action should be permitted to proceed despite the late filing. Key factors included the extent of any prejudice to the defendant and whether justice required the extension of the limitation period. The court found that there was no prejudice to the defendant, as Ropolo had all the necessary information and documentation readily available to defend the claim. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff's delay in commencing the action was due to his ongoing recovery from the injuries and the need to engage legal representation. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant the extension of time to allow the plaintiff to pursue his common law rights.

In light of the above, the court granted the extension of the limitation period to 31 July 2008. The court also ordered that the defendant's costs of the application be paid by the plaintiff, but those costs were not to be recoverable until the making of final orders in the action. The court emphasised that the costs should be borne by the plaintiff, as the delay in bringing the action was attributable to the plaintiff's own inaction. The court made clear that the plaintiff's solicitor would be responsible for ensuring that the plaintiff met the costs obligation, rather than the plaintiff himself.