Haley v Roma Town Council

Case [2005] QCA 3

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Haley & Anor v Roma Town Council; McDonald v Romijay P/L & Ors [2005] QCA 3

PARTIES:

ALEXANDER JOHN HALEY
(first applicant/first respondent)
BENTILLI PTY LTD
ACN 071 279 153
(second applicant/second respondent)
v
ROMA TOWN COUNCIL
(respondent/applicant)

BRIAN MERVYN MCDONALD
(applicant/respondent)
v
ROMIJAY PTY LTD
ACN 085 245 370
(first respondent/first applicant)
PHILIP USHER CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD
ACN 011 008 101
(second respondent/second applicant)
TRIMCROFT PTY LTD
ACN 011 008 763
(third respondent/third applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7876 of 2004
Appeal No 7103 of 2004
DC No 2647 of 2004
DC No 2254 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

In each of the appeals no 7876 of 2004 and 7103 of 2004:

1.     Application for leave to appeal granted but limited to the grounds of appeal concerning interpretation of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)

2.     Appeal refused with costs to be assessed

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – POSTPONEMENT OF THE BAR – EXTENSION OF PERIOD – CAUSE OF ACTION IN RESPECT OF PERSONAL INJURIES – GENERAL MATTERS – interpretation of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – where both respondents sustained personal injuries in separate circumstances – where both respondents issued complying notices of claim within the limitation period – where both respondents commenced proceedings without complying with the necessary pre-litigation steps required under the Act – whether a "complying notice of claim" in s 59(1) is limited to a claim complying with time frames in s 9(3) – whether an application under s 59 is required to be made within the limitation period - whether s 59(2)(b) gives the Court an unfettered discretion to allow the commencement of proceedings after the expiry of the limitation period where a complying notice of claim has been given within the limitation period - whether the Court can make an order under s 59(2)(b) where s 77D is applicable

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 59(1), s 59(2)(a), s 59(2)(b), s 59(3), s 77D

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited
Holmes v Adnought Sheet Metal Fabrications Pty Ltd [2004] 1 Qd R 378, cited
Kash v SM & TJ Cedergren Builders [2004] 1 Qd R 643, discussed
Morrison-Gardiner v Car Choice P/L & Anor; Crain and Crocker & Anor; O'Dare v Vitanza & Ors [2004] QCA 480; Appeal No 5494 of 2004, Appeal No 5576 of 2004, Appeal No 7409 of 2004, 17 December 2004, discussed

COUNSEL:

K N Wilson SC, with S T Farrell, for the applicant in Appeal No 7876 of 2004
D A Reid for the respondents in Appeal No 7876 of 2004
K N Wilson SC, with R…

Continue reading Haley v Roma Town Council

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Haley v Roma Town Council [2005] QCA 3
Case
[2005] QCA 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Haley v Roma Town Council involved two respondents who had sustained personal injuries in separate incidents. Both respondents had issued complying notices of claim within the statutory limitation period, but they failed to adhere to the mandatory pre-litigation steps stipulated under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) before initiating proceedings. The central legal issues in the case pertained to the interpretation of several sections of the Act, including whether a 'complying notice of claim' under section 59(1) requires compliance with the time frames set out in section 9(3). Additionally, the court had to determine if an application under section 59 must be made within the limitation period and whether section 59(2)(b) empowers the Court with an unrestricted discretion to permit the commencement of proceedings post-expiry of the limitation period, provided a complying notice of claim had been given within the statutory timeframe. The court also needed to decide if section 77D impacts the Court's ability to make an order under section 59(2)(b).

The court found that a 'complying notice of claim' under section 59(1) does not necessarily mean it must comply with the time frames specified in section 9(3) of the Act. The court interpreted the statutory language to indicate that the notice of claim need only meet the requirements of section 59 to be considered 'complying'. The court further held that the requirement to make an application under section 59 within the limitation period was not absolute, as the primary focus of section 59 is on the validity of the notice of claim. Regarding section 59(2)(b), the court determined that the statutory language did not confer an unfettered discretion to allow the commencement of proceedings beyond the limitation period; rather, it provides the Court with the authority to extend the period if certain criteria are met. The court also concluded that section 77D does not preclude the Court from making an order under section 59(2)(b), as the two provisions address different aspects of the statutory framework.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeals on the specified grounds, with leave to appeal granted but limited to the issues concerning the interpretation of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The court also ordered that costs be assessed against the appellants.

Orders

Orders of the court

In each of the appeals no 7876 of 2004 and 7103 of 2004:

1. Application for leave to appeal granted but limited to the grounds of appeal concerning interpretation of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)

2. Appeal refused with costs to be assessed

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.