Arndt v Horwood (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Arndt v Horwood & Anor (No 2) [2012] QSC 137

PARTIES:

Melinda Peta ARNDT
(Applicant)

-and-

Rachael Ann HORWOOD
(First Respondent)

-and-

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED (ACN 075 695 966)

FILE NO/S:

S365 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

23 May 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

Submissions in writing

JUDGE:

North J

ORDER:

1.   The limitation period in respect of an action for personal injury suffered by the applicant on 29 November 2007 be extended to 30 July 2012.

2.   That the second respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the application for an extension of the limitation period including the hearing on 18 November 2011 to be assessed on the scale of costs and charges applicable in the District Court.

CATCHWORDS:

COSTS

COUNSEL:

M Pope of counsel for the Applicant

R D Green for the Respondents

SOLICITORS:

Connolly Suthers Lawyers for the Applicant

Miller Harris Lawyers for the Respondents

1. On 18 April 2012 I delivered reasons concluding that the applicant was entitled to an extension of the limitation period and made orders requiring the parties to make submissions in writing concerning the terms of the order and on questions of costs.

1. The parties have made their submissions in writing as directed and these are the reasons for the orders I make.[1] 

   [1]Refer outline of submissions of counsel for the applicant dated 30 April 2012, outline of submissions by counsel on behalf of the second respondent dated 2 May 2012 and email by way of reply by counsel for the applicant dated 3 May 2012.

Extension order

1. Though differing somewhat in how they arrived at the position both parties have concurred that the applicant was entitled, in light of my reasons, for an order extending time to a date one year after she became aware of the opinion of Dr Maguire, the orthopaedic specialist, whose opinion it was that the symptoms the applicant had recently suffered from were attributable to the 2007 motor vehicle accident.

1. The ascertainment of that precise date of his is somewhat uncertain. It is complicated because Dr Maguire gave two reports dated 20 July 2011.[2] The reason for this was that Dr Maguire, when he wrote the first report dated 20 July 2011, apparently misunderstood some of the facts and history of the applicant’s injury and suffering with the result that it was necessary for the applicant’s solicitors to write a letter to Dr Maguire on 27 July 2011 providing the doctor with a history consistent with the applicant’s instructions,[3] and it was in response to that letter of 27 July 2011 that Dr Maguire’s second report dated 20 July 2011 was prepared.

   [2]See, for example, Arndt v Horwood & Anor [2012] QSC 104 at [9].

   [3]See, for example, Arndt v Horwood & Anor [2012] QSC 104 at [8].

1. In the circumstance that the first report dated 20 July 2011 prepared by Dr Maguire proceeded upon an inaccurate history…