Hickson v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd - [2023] QSC 196

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hickson v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 196

PARTIES:

CRAIG THOMAS HICKSON

(plaintiff)

v
HAIL CREEK COAL PTY LTD
ACN 080 002 008

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

No 6280 of 21

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 August 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGE:

Brown J

ORDER:

Pursuant to r 24(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Court renew the claim filed on 2 June 2021.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – TIME FOR SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS AND RENEWAL – where the plaintiff seeks an order to renew its claim filed 2 June 2021 – where the period of renewal is greater than the one-year period contemplated by s 24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the proceedings were filed with the defendant’s agreement – where the proceedings were stayed by agreement until the plaintiff complied with Chapter 2 Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – whether the claim should be renewed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)

Babcock & Brown Pty Ltd v Arthur Anderson [2010] QSC 287
Gillies v Dibbetts [2001] 1 Qd R 596

SOLICITORS:

Butler McDermott Lawyers for the plaintiff

The plaintiff seeks an order to renew the claim filed on 2 June 2021. The period of renewal is greater than the one-year period contemplated by r 24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). However, the Court may renew a claim for a greater period in exercise of its general power to extend a time set under r 7 of the UCPR.[1]
[1]Gillies v Dibbetts [2001] 1 Qd R 596 at [21].
Relevant to this application, the plaintiff must satisfy the Court that there is good reason to renew the claim. Prejudice to a defendant as a result of the delay is a relevant consideration in determining whether there is a good reason for renewal,[2] at least in circumstances where the plaintiff does not seek to establish that reasonable efforts have been made to serve the defendant.[3] The plaintiff does not seek to establish it made such efforts.
[2]Gillies v Dibbetts [2001] 1 Qd R 596 at [23] per Wilson J.
[3]Gillies v Dibbetts [2001] 1 Qd R 596 at [22] per Wilson J.
In the present case, the proceedings were filed after the defendant agreed to the commencement of the proceedings pursuant to s 44 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) (PIPA).[4] By the agreement reached between the parties in May 2021, the proceedings were stayed until the plaintiff complied with Chapter 2 Part 1 of PIPA unless the proceeding is discontinued or otherwise ends.[5] A notice of claim sworn 19 February 2021 had been forwarded to the defendant’s solicitor by the plaintiff’s solicitor on or about…

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 Hickson v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd 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: [2023] QSC 196
Decision Date: 29 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Hickson, brought an action against the defendant, Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd, seeking renewal of a claim filed on 2 June 2021. The case was before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The crux of the dispute was whether the plaintiff's claim should be renewed beyond the statutory one-year renewal period as contemplated by section 24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The proceedings were initially filed with the defendant's agreement and subsequently stayed by agreement until the plaintiff complied with the provisions of Chapter 2 Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld).

The court considered whether it had the discretion to allow the renewal of the claim beyond the one-year statutory period. The plaintiff argued that the proceedings were filed with the defendant's consent and had been stayed by mutual agreement pending compliance with the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act. The court was tasked with determining if these circumstances warranted an exception to the strict one-year renewal period under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The court also examined whether the defendant would suffer any prejudice if the claim was renewed.

The court found that the circumstances of the case, including the agreement of the parties at the time of filing and the subsequent stay of the proceedings, provided a valid basis for granting the renewal. The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the renewal. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under rule 24(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to allow the renewal of the claim. The court ordered that the claim filed on 2 June 2021 be renewed, enabling the plaintiff to proceed with the litigation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to r 24(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), the Court renew the claim filed on 2 June 2021.

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:	Hickson v Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd [2023] QSC 196
PARTIES:	CRAIG THOMAS HICKSON (plaintiff) v HAIL CREEK COAL PTY LTD ACN 080 002 008 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	No 6280 of 21
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 August 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Heard on the papers
JUDGE:	Brown J
ORDER:	Pursuant to r 24(2) of the *Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999* (Qld), the Court renew the claim filed on 2 June 2021.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS – TIME FOR SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS AND RENEWAL – where the plaintiff seeks an order to renew its claim filed 2 June 2021 – where the period of renewal is greater than the one-year period contemplated by s 24 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where the proceedings were filed with the defendant’s agreement – where the proceedings were stayed by agreement until the plaintiff complied with Chapter 2 Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) – whether the claim should be renewed Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Babcock & Brown Pty Ltd v Arthur Anderson [2010] QSC 287 Gillies v Dibbetts [2001] 1 Qd R 596
SOLICITORS:	Butler McDermott Lawyers for the plaintiff