Harding v Brisbane Transport & Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd

[2006] QDC 258

[2006] QDC 258

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1982 of 2006

LYNELL GAY HARDING

Applicant

and

BRISBANE TRANSPORT

and

SUNCORP METWAY INSURANCE LIMITED
(ACN 075 695 966)

First Respondent

Second Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/07/2006

ORDER

CATCHWORDS: Combined applications on eve of expiry of limitation period under Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s43 for leave to shorten a proceeding - and under Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s57(2)(b) for a longer time to start one against the insurer - where applicant fell and was injured when boarding a stationary bus.

HIS HONOUR:  This is a combined application by Ms Harding who slipped on the stairs of the bus which she was boarding with young children on the 12th of July 2003 and suffered personal injury.

There has been some delay in her getting proceedings underway because she was waiting to see how her injuries resolved from the point of view of allowing her to rejoin the workforce when family commitments permitted. 

She is facing the imminent ending of the three year limitation period and requires the leave of the Court under Section 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, if she is to commence a proceeding which will not be statute barred, having not completed all the compulsory pre-proceedings steps mandated by the PIPA. The practice is usually to grant such orders subject to a stay. Exhibit 1 is the letter of the Brisbane City Council's solicitors consenting to the relief required under the PIPA.

The other aspect of the application arises under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, a longer period for commencing the proceeding being sought by the applicant under Section 57(2)(b). It is an oddity that the applicant must commence against one prospective defendant quickly while being delayed in proceeding against the other, which is the statutory insurer of the bus. That is a consequence of the different statutory regimes.

Mr Reid for the applicant informs the Court that in his view, separate proceedings are required.  His expectation is that given that the bus was stationary, the proceeding against the insurer of it will, in the future, be accepted by all concerned to be unnecessary.  For the moment, in his camp, there is not sufficient confidence in that position to justify running the risk of the applicant falling between stools. 

The draft order handed up seeks the relief prayed and also incorporates a list of steps to be taken by the parties involved under Section 51A, 51B and 51C.  Exhibit 2 is a letter from the insurer indicating an attitude of abiding the Court's order.  Given the contents of that letter, it is appropriate for the Court to make an order in terms of the draft handed up by Mr Reid which I have initialled.

-----