De Innocentis v Brisbane City Council

In De Innocentis v Brisbane City Council, the plaintiff, Mario De Innocentis, filed a claim against the Brisbane City Council and North Brisbane Hospitals Board alleging personal injuries sustained from the negligence of the Council's employees and the Board's servants. The plaintiff sought to join MMI Insurance Limited, the statutory insurer of the bus, as a defendant outside the limitation period. The Council applied to have the plaintiff's claim against it struck out due to the failure to join the statutory insurer within the statutory timeframe. The court needed to determine whether the statutory insurer could be joined as a defendant outside the limitation period, given that the actual tortfeasor was sued within time. The court also had to consider if the peculiar circumstances in Hannan v Jones warranted the joinder of the statutory insurer despite the expiration of the limitation period.

The court held that the statutory insurer must be joined as a party within the limitation period. The Motor Accidents Insurance Act 1994 requires that an action be brought against both the injured person and the insurer as joint defendants. Once the limitation period has expired, the statutory insurer can only be added as a defendant if it falls within the well-established principles for adding a defendant after the expiration of the limitation period. The court found that the plaintiff's failure to join the statutory insurer was not due to inadvertence or peculiar circumstances but rather a conscious decision or gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff's solicitor. The court held that the plaintiff's action against the Council should be struck out due to the failure to comply with the statutory requirements. However, the court allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the name of the second defendant to "The State of Queensland".

The court's orders were that the plaintiff's claim against the Brisbane City Council be struck out and that the plaintiff pay the Council's costs incidental to the action, including this application, to be taxed. The court also allowed the plaintiff's application to amend the name of the second defendant to "The State of Queensland" and dispensed with the service of the amended writ. No order was made as to costs in relation to the plaintiff's application.