Bazley v Nominal Defendant - [2006] QDC 379

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bazley v Nominal Defendant [2006] QDC 379

PARTIES:

PAUL MICHAEL BAZLEY

Applicant

AND

NOMINAL DEFENDANT

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD 1567 of 2006

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2006

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

MOTOR VEHICLES – Compulsory insurance – pre‑litigation procedures – complying notice but no action within limitation period – whether limitation period can be extended.

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 57(2)(b).

Morrison‑Gardiner v Car Choice Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 408 – applied.

Winters v Doyle [2006] QCA 110 – followed.

COUNSEL:

R. C. Morton for the applicant

F. H. Dawson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Kerin & Co for the applicant

Biggs & Biggs for the respondent

This is an application under s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (“the Act”) for leave to bring a proceeding in respect of a claim, for which a complying notice of claim has been given, more than six months after the notice was given, notwithstanding the expiry of the limitation period. Since s 57 is concerned with allowing a proceeding to be brought after the end of the limitation period which otherwise applies to the proceeding, the practical effect of my allowing a longer period is to give an extension of the limitation period so as to allow an action to be commenced now, even though the limitation period has expired. The application was opposed by the respondent, the prospective defendant if a proceeding can now be commenced.

Background

The applicant claims to have suffered personal injury as a result of a motor vehicle accident on 21 February 2001.[1] On that day, he was driving a motor vehicle along Brisbane Street, West Ipswich in the right-hand of two lanes when he came to a halt behind some other vehicles that were stopped at an intersection, because the vehicle at the head of the line was wanting to turn right. He then decided to move into the left lane, which was free ahead. He saw that there was a white vehicle approaching from the rear, but decided there was sufficient room to complete the manoeuvre, and began to move into the left-hand lane. However, the vehicle approaching from the rear did not stop, and collided with the left front corner of the applicant’s vehicle, as a result of which the right front corner of that vehicle struck the vehicle which had been ahead of it in the right-hand lane.
[1]Affidavit of applicant para 3: the rest of the information about the accident comes from the reports exhibited to the affidavit of Kerin filed 30 May 2006.

After the accident, the applicant and the driver of the vehicle in the right-hand lane stopped and exchanged details, but the driver of the white vehicle did not stop and the applicant could not identify it. He claims that as a result of the collision he suffered injury, particularly…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Bazley v Nominal Defendant

Details

AGLC: Bazley v Nominal Defendant [2006] QDC 379
Case: [2006] QDC 379
Decision Date: 10 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Bazley v Nominal Defendant, the plaintiff sought to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case was brought before the court after the statutory pre-litigation procedures were followed, including the provision of a complying notice, but no action was initiated within the prescribed limitation period. The central issue was whether the limitation period could be extended given the circumstances of the case.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate application of the limitation period in the context of motor vehicle accidents, particularly in situations where a complying notice was issued but no legal proceedings were initiated in time. The court needed to consider whether the statutory framework allowed for an extension of the limitation period under such circumstances and whether any equitable principles could apply to mitigate the strict statutory requirements.

After a thorough analysis of the statutory provisions and relevant case law, the court held that the statutory limitation period could not be extended in this instance. The court found that the statutory scheme was clear in setting out the limitation period for such claims and that there were no grounds for extending it, either by statute or by applying equitable considerations. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in motor vehicle accident claims, particularly after the issuance of a complying notice. The court's ruling reinforces the principle that, in the absence of specific statutory provisions allowing for extensions, the limitation period must be strictly observed. This case serves as a reminder to claimants of the necessity to initiate legal proceedings within the prescribed timeframe to avoid the risk of their claims being barred by limitation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Bazley v Nominal Defendant [2006] QDC 379
PARTIES:	PAUL MICHAEL BAZLEY Applicant AND NOMINAL DEFENDANT Respondent
FILE NO/S:	BD 1567 of 2006
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 October 2006
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR VEHICLES – Compulsory insurance – pre‑litigation procedures – complying notice but no action within limitation period – whether limitation period can be extended. Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 57(2)(b). Morrison‑Gardiner v Car Choice Pty Ltd [2004] QCA 408 – applied. Winters v Doyle [2006] QCA 110 – followed.
COUNSEL:	R. C. Morton for the applicant F. H. Dawson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Kerin & Co for the applicant Biggs & Biggs for the respondent