Faram v Hensec Pty Limited

The case of Faram v Hensec Pty Limited involved an applicant who claimed to have suffered injury as a result of an incident that occurred in 2017. The applicant issued compliant notices of claim within the limitation period, but had failed to comply with pre-court procedures under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The delay in complying with these procedures was also attributable to the respondents, and the applicant had previously been granted informal extensions. The court was required to decide whether leave should be granted to extend the limitation period under section 59 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002.

The court considered the purpose of section 59, which was to ensure that claimants with good cases could have their claims fairly tried, despite the need to comply with the Act. The court noted that the reason for delay was an important consideration, but not the only consideration, in deciding whether to grant an extension of time. Other relevant factors included the length of delay, lack of diligence in prosecuting the claim, diminished prospects of a fair trial, and the potential denial of a complete defence to the respondent. The court held that the applicant had not shown good reason for the delay, and therefore dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application.

In summary, the court considered the purpose of section 59 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, which was to ensure that claimants with good cases could have their claims fairly tried, despite the need to comply with the Act. The court noted that the reason for delay was an important consideration, but not the only consideration, in deciding whether to grant an extension of time. The court held that the applicant had not shown good reason for the delay, and therefore dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the application.