Kreyzig v QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd
Case
•
[2018] QDC 70
•6th April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kreyzig v QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd [2018] QDC 70
[2018] QDC 70
6th April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Kreyzig v QBE Insurance (Aust) Ltd involves a plaintiff who suffered personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff filed a claim in the District Court on 19 March 2013, but due to a delay in the proceedings, an application was made under Rule 389 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Qld 1999 for leave to proceed. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the filing of a mediator’s certificate constituted a step in the proceeding for the purposes of Rule 389. Additionally, the court had to consider whether leave should be granted to proceed with the claim given the admitted liability, the delay partly due to the plaintiff’s medical condition, and the absence of prejudice to the defendants.
The court examined the nature of the step required under Rule 389 and concluded that the filing of a mediator’s certificate did not constitute a step in the proceeding. This was because mediation, while permissible, is not mandated by the rules, and thus the filing of a mediator’s certificate did not suffice to prevent the necessity for a court order under Rule 389. The court further considered the delay in the proceedings, which was partly due to the plaintiff's medical condition, and noted that the parties were otherwise ready for trial with no prejudice to the defendants. Based on these considerations, the court found that leave should be granted to proceed with the claim. Consequently, leave was granted under Rule 389(2), and the defendants’ cross application was dismissed. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the applications, subject to the parties’ rights to make submissions as to any different costs order if desired.
The court examined the nature of the step required under Rule 389 and concluded that the filing of a mediator’s certificate did not constitute a step in the proceeding. This was because mediation, while permissible, is not mandated by the rules, and thus the filing of a mediator’s certificate did not suffice to prevent the necessity for a court order under Rule 389. The court further considered the delay in the proceedings, which was partly due to the plaintiff's medical condition, and noted that the parties were otherwise ready for trial with no prejudice to the defendants. Based on these considerations, the court found that leave should be granted to proceed with the claim. Consequently, leave was granted under Rule 389(2), and the defendants’ cross application was dismissed. The defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the applications, subject to the parties’ rights to make submissions as to any different costs order if desired.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Limitation Periods
-
Leave to Proceed
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
LK Smith Holdings Pty Ltd v Fja Holdings Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 182
Cases Citing This Decision
4
LK Smith Holdings Pty Ltd v Fja Holdings Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 182
Deathridge v McNaught
[2019] QDC 165
LK Smith Holdings Pty Ltd v Fja Holdings Pty Ltd
[2025] QSC 182
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd & Ors
[2000] QCA 178
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor
[1996] HCA 25
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor
[1996] HCA 25