Grapes v AAI Limited - [2025] QCA 60

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60

PARTIES:

SONIA LAURA GRAPES
(appellant)
v
AAI LIMITED TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE
ABN 48 005 297 807
(first respondent)
BRAD ALLEN
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 16209 of 2024
SC No 10962 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 267 (Copley J)

DELIVERED ON:

2 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 April 2025

JUDGES:

Bond and Bradley JJA and Ryan J

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the appellant was a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service – where the appellant attended the scene of a motor vehicle accident on 2 September 2018 – where the appellant filed an application and sought an extension of time order for her to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries against the respondents pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – where the appellant did not bring an action claiming damages from the driver and the CTP insurer in respect of the accident within six years after the accident – whether, between about mid-2021 and November 2023, the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer – whether the appellant knew or had it within her means of knowledge to know of those facts – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s application for an extension of time

Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 208C
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 275

NF v State of Queensland[2005] QCA 110, considered

COUNSEL:

B F Charrington KC, with S M McNeil, for the appellant
S J Williams KC, with D J Murphy, for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Denning Insurance Law for the appellant
Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the respondents

BOND JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Bradley JA and with the orders proposed by his Honour.
BRADLEY JA: The appellant was a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS). On 2 September 2018, she attended the scene of a motor vehicle accident at Mount Tamborine. A single vehicle was involved. The first respondent was the driver. The second respondent (the CTP insurer) was the insurer, covering the driver’s liability for personal injury caused by, through or in connection with the use of the vehicle.[1]
[1]Under part 3 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1984 (Qld).
The appellant remained at the scene of the accident for about an hour with an injured passenger. The passenger’s arm had been almost completely amputated in the accident. The appellant retrieved the passenger’s humerus bone from where it was lodged in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grapes v AAI Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QCA 60
Decision Date: 2 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grapes v AAI Limited involved the appellant, a paramedic who attended the scene of a motor vehicle accident on 2 September 2018. She subsequently filed an application seeking an extension of time to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries against the respondents. This application was pursuant to section 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The appellant had not initiated legal action against the driver and the CTP insurer within the statutory six-year limitation period. The court had to determine whether the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer between mid-2021 and November 2023, and if she knew or had it within her means of knowledge to know these facts.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge correctly dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time. The court considered whether the appellant had fulfilled the criteria necessary to warrant an extension of the limitation period. This involved examining the reasonableness of the steps taken by the appellant to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer, as well as whether she knew or ought to have known the relevant facts within the statutory period.

The court held that the primary judge was correct in dismissing the appellant's application. The reasoning provided by the court was that the appellant had not demonstrated that she took all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer. Furthermore, the court found that the appellant knew or ought to have known the necessary facts within the statutory period. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

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.

CITATION:	Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60
PARTIES:	SONIA LAURA GRAPES (appellant) v AAI LIMITED TRADING AS SUNCORP INSURANCE ABN 48 005 297 807 (first respondent) BRAD ALLEN (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 16209 of 2024 SC No 10962 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2024] QSC 267 (Copley J)
DELIVERED ON:	2 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 April 2025
JUDGES:	Bond and Bradley JJA and Ryan J
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – GENERALLY – where the appellant was a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service – where the appellant attended the scene of a motor vehicle accident on 2 September 2018 – where the appellant filed an application and sought an extension of time order for her to commence proceedings claiming damages for personal injuries against the respondents pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – where the appellant did not bring an action claiming damages from the driver and the CTP insurer in respect of the accident within six years after the accident – whether, between about mid-2021 and November 2023, the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer – whether the appellant knew or had it within her means of knowledge to know of those facts – whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the appellant’s application for an extension of time Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11, s 30, s 31 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 208C Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 275 NF v State of Queensland[2005] QCA 110, considered
COUNSEL:	B F Charrington KC, with S M McNeil, for the appellant S J Williams KC, with D J Murphy, for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Denning Insurance Law for the appellant Moray & Agnew Lawyers for the respondents