Coles Group Limited v Costin

Coles Group Limited sought to appeal a decision of the District Court of Queensland that granted an extension of the limitation period to an employee who had suffered an injury while working for the supermarket. The employee, having consulted various doctors, lodged a notice of claim for damages after the limitation period had expired. The supermarket argued that the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to extend the limitation period, as the employee's lawyers had caused an unnecessary and unexplained delay in bringing the application. Additionally, the supermarket contended that it had been prejudiced by the employee's delay, particularly in relation to the part of the claim concerning inadequate training.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in granting the extension of the limitation period. It was also required to consider whether the supermarket was prejudiced by the employee's delay in lodging the claim, and if so, whether this constituted a valid ground for refusing an extension of time. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether the supermarket had a right of appeal from the primary decision as of right under s 118(2)(b) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), or whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 118(3) of the Act. Lastly, the court needed to consider whether further evidence, which became available after the primary decision was appealed, could be admitted.

The court found that the primary judge had exercised the discretion to extend the limitation period correctly. The court held that the supermarket had not demonstrated any prejudice caused by the employee's delay in lodging the claim. Regarding the appeal, the court held that the supermarket did not have a right of appeal as of right, but it granted leave to appeal under s 118(3) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld). The court also held that the fresh evidence, which could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence before the primary decision, could be admitted. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the primary decision, and remitted the matter to the District Court for further consideration.

The court ordered that the respondent's application to adduce further evidence be granted, the application for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal be granted, and the application for leave to appeal be granted. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were required to file and serve any undertaking by the respondent and submissions on further orders, including costs orders, within 14 days.