Douglass v Rocla Pty Ltd

Case [2014] QDC 182

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Douglass v Rocla Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 182

PARTIES:

RYAN WILLIAM DOUGLASS

(applicant)

and

ROCLA PTY LTD (ACN 000 032 191)

(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2046/14

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland

HEARING DATE:

14 August 2014

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

JUDGE:

R S Jones DCJ

ORDERS:

1. The Applicant is granted leave to commence proceedings for damages arising out of an incident that occurred over a period of time between 11 October 2010 and 9 December 2010 pursuant to s 59 of the Personal Injuries ProceedingsAct 2002;

2.          That subject to any relaxation ordered by the Court, that the proceedings be stayed pending compliance with the pre-proceedings provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002; and

3.          I will hear from the parties if necessary about costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – TORT – PERSONAL INJURIES – extension of time to permit a proceeding to be started – pre-litigation procedure – Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA) – exercise of discretion – whether a compliant part 1 notice of claim existed for purposes of s 59 of PIPA – other discretionary grounds – delay on part of applicant – prejudice to defendant

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002

Haley & Anor v Roma Town Council & Ors (2005) QCA 3

Ward v Wilshire Australia Pty Ltd & Anor (2008) QCA 93

Morrison-Gardiner v Car Choice Pty Ltd (2004) QCA 480

Winters v Doyle (2006) QCA 110

Berhane v Woolworths Ltd (2013) QDC 194

Ghobrial v Assaf & Ors [2014] QDC 141

McDonald v Holy Spirit Care Sercices Ltd & Anor (2011) QDC 78

Tiver v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (2009) QDC 106

Crain v Crocker & Anor (2004) QDC 151

Patterson v Leigh & Anor (2008) QSC 277

COUNSEL:

Mr Kehoe for the applicant

Mr K Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Dale & Fallu Solicitors for the applicant

Norton Rose Fulbright Australia for the respondent

  1. This proceeding is concerned with an application pursuant to s 59 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA).  The relief sought was for the following orders:

1.          That the applicant be granted leave to commence proceedings for damages arising out of an incident that occurred over a period of time between 11 October 2010 and 9 December 2010…

2.          That subject to any relaxation ordered by the court, that the proceeding be stayed pending compliance with the pre-proceeding provisions of (PIPA);

3.          Any other order the court deems appropriate;

4.          That the respondent pay the applicant’s cost of and incidental to the application on an indemnity basis…

  1. For the reasons set out below the orders of the court are:

1. The Applicant is granted leave to commence proceedings for damages arising out of an incident that occurred over a period of time between 11 October 2010 and 9 December 2010 pursuant to s 59 of the Personal Injuries ProceedingsAct 2002;

2.          That subject to any relaxation ordered by the Court,…

Continue reading Douglass v Rocla Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Douglass v Rocla Pty Ltd [2014] QDC 182
Case
[2014] QDC 182
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Douglass, sought to bring a personal injury claim against Rocla Pty Ltd, the Respondent, for injuries sustained during their employment. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the Applicant's primary contention was that the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the commencement of proceedings despite the expiration of the statutory limitation period. The crux of the dispute was whether a compliant part 1 notice of claim existed for the purposes of section 59 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA), which provides for an extension of time to permit a proceeding to be started.

The Court had to decide whether the Applicant had a compliant notice of claim under the Act and, if so, whether the Applicant's delay in serving the notice was such that it should not be granted leave to commence the proceedings. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Applicant's delay had caused prejudice to the Respondent, which could be a ground for denying leave under the statute. The Court examined the statutory requirements for a compliant notice and the discretion it possessed under section 59 of the PIPA.

In its judgment, the Court found that a compliant notice of claim had indeed been served, and while there was some delay on the part of the Applicant, it was not so substantial as to warrant a refusal of leave. The Court also found that the delay had not caused any prejudice to the Respondent. Therefore, the Court granted leave to the Applicant to commence proceedings against the Respondent for damages arising from the personal injuries sustained. The proceedings were to be stayed pending compliance with the pre-proceedings provisions of the PIPA. The Court reserved the decision on costs for a later stage in the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Applicant is granted leave to commence proceedings for damages arising out of an incident that occurred over a period of time between 11 October 2010 and 9 December 2010 pursuant to s 59 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002;

2. That subject to any relaxation ordered by the Court, that the proceedings be stayed pending compliance with the pre-proceedings provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002; and

3. I will hear from the parties if necessary about 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.