John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd - [2025] QDC 33

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 33

PARTIES:

Joeleen Robin John

(Applicant)

v

Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd

ABN 94 103 423 374

(Respondent)

FILE NO:

BD 2592 of 2024

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane.

HEARING DATE:

30 October 2024.

JUDGE:

Byrne KC DCJ

ORDER:

1. The application for leave under s. 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 is granted.

2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS – where the applicant claims she slipped and fell when walking through a shopping centre – where the applicant claimed damages for personal injury from the owner of the shopping centre – where the respondent was the contracted cleaner for the shopping centre – where the applicant asserted it properly joined the respondent to the claim – where the respondent did not believe it was properly joined – where the limitation period has expired – whether the circumstances permit an extension of time pursuant to s. 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld).

LEGISLATION:

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s. 57.

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), ss. 9, 13, 14, 20, 27, 59(2).

Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2014 (Qld), r. 7.

CASES:

Folwell v Mayer [2020] QSC 162.

Paterson v Leigh & Anor [2008] QSC 277.
Perdis v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555.

Wright v Sirrom Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 26.

COUNSEL:
Mr M. Forbes for the applicant.

Mr A.P.J. Collins for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:
TPIL Lawyers for the applicant.

Barry Nilsson for the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant alleges that she slipped and fell, injuring her right knee, when walking through a shopping centre on 14 October 2019. The incident, and one hour each side of it, was captured on CCTV and the footage has been preserved. The respondent was the contracted cleaner for that shopping centre.
There is no dispute that the applicant commenced proceedings for personal injuries against the owner of the shopping centre in accordance with the procedures required by the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (“PIPA”) within time. There is a dispute as to whether the respondent was properly joined as a respondent to the claim under PIPA within time. Regardless, proceedings were not commenced against the respondent within the limitation period and the applicant now seeks leave under s. 59(2) of PIPA to commence a proceeding in this Court notwithstanding that the limitation period has expired. She also seeks disclosure pursuant to s. 27 of PIPA.
Factual summary
As the factual background is complicated by some dispute, it is desirable to set it out in some detail.
While not legally represented in September 2021, the applicant served a Notice of…

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.

Continue reading John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 33
Case: [2025] QDC 33
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd, the applicant alleged she sustained injuries after slipping and falling in a shopping centre. The respondent was the cleaning contractor for the shopping centre. The applicant sought damages from both the shopping centre owner and the respondent, arguing that the respondent should be joined in the proceedings. The respondent disputed the applicant's assertion that it was properly joined. The issue before the court was whether the limitation period for bringing the claim against the respondent could be extended under section 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld).

The court noted that the limitation period had expired and considered whether the circumstances justified an extension of time under section 59(2). The applicant argued that the delay was due to the respondent's failure to provide necessary information, and that there were other circumstances that warranted an extension. The respondent maintained that the applicant had not acted with due diligence and that the application should be dismissed. The court found that the respondent's failure to provide information contributed to the delay, and that the applicant had acted reasonably in seeking the information. The court granted the application for leave, finding that the circumstances justified an extension of the limitation period.

In summary, the court granted the applicant's application for an extension of the limitation period under section 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld). The court will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders and the allocation of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave under s. 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 is granted.

2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders.

3. I will hear the parties as to costs.

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:	John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd [2025] QDC 33
PARTIES:	Joeleen Robin John (Applicant) v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd ABN 94 103 423 374 (Respondent)
FILE NO:	BD 2592 of 2024
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	17 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane.
HEARING DATE:	30 October 2024.
JUDGE:	Byrne KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application for leave under s. 59(2) of the *Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002* is granted. 2. I will hear the parties as to the appropriate form of orders. 3. I will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATIONS OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS – where the applicant claims she slipped and fell when walking through a shopping centre – where the applicant claimed damages for personal injury from the owner of the shopping centre – where the respondent was the contracted cleaner for the shopping centre – where the applicant asserted it properly joined the respondent to the claim – where the respondent did not believe it was properly joined – where the limitation period has expired – whether the circumstances permit an extension of time pursuant to s. 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 (Qld).
LEGISLATION:	Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld), s. 57. Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), ss. 9, 13, 14, 20, 27, 59(2). Personal Injuries Proceedings Regulation 2014 (Qld), r. 7.
CASES:	Folwell v Mayer [2020] QSC 162. Paterson v Leigh & Anor [2008] QSC 277. Perdis v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555. Wright v Sirrom Corporation (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] QSC 26.
COUNSEL:	Mr M. Forbes for the applicant. Mr A.P.J. Collins for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	TPIL Lawyers for the applicant. Barry Nilsson for the respondent.