Cayley v Gladstone Regional Council

The plaintiff in this matter, Cayley, sought an extension of time to commence proceedings against the Gladstone Regional Council for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident in September 2020. The plaintiff issued a complying Notice of Claim under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to commence proceedings outside the limitation period, in light of the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld).

The court considered whether the plaintiff had established exceptional circumstances under s 59(2)(b) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) that justified an extension of the limitation period. The court examined the plaintiff's reasons for the delay in commencing proceedings and whether the delay was reasonable in the circumstances. The court also considered the potential prejudice to the defendant if the extension was granted.

The court found that the plaintiff had established exceptional circumstances that justified an extension of time. The plaintiff had experienced a significant delay in obtaining medical reports and had faced difficulties in obtaining the necessary documentation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The court was satisfied that the delay was not attributable to any fault on the part of the plaintiff and that the delay was reasonable in the circumstances. The court granted the plaintiff leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of a specified event occurring, as outlined in the orders.

The court ordered that the plaintiff be given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring: a compulsory conference being held pursuant to s 36 of PIPA and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 39(1) of PIPA; the date of agreement, if the parties dispense with the compulsory conference by agreement pursuant to s 36(4) of PIPA; or an order by the Court, pursuant to s 36(5) of PIPA, dispensing with the compulsory conference. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the respondent's costs of the application on a standard basis.