Lane v Abacus Group Holdings Ltd

[2013] QDC 222

[2013] QDC 222

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 1665 of 2013

SHANTI DEVI LANE  Applicant

and

ABACUS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD
and OTHERS  Respondent

BRISBANE

11.24 AM, TUESDAY, 21 MAY 2013

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Personal Injuries Proceeding Act 2002 s43, s59

Order made to protect claimant against limitations problems

HIS HONOUR: The court makes an order in terms of the initalled draft. That exercise involves my signature being added to a document recording the consent of both the applicant and the second respondent to leave being granted under section 59(2)(b) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 for the applicant to commence a proceeding within 60 days of one of the following events occurring: namely, a conference being held under sections 36, 37 and 38 and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with section 39 and 40, dispensation with the compulsory conference by agreement of the parties under section 36(4), or a court order pursuant to section 36(5)(b) dispensing with a compulsory conference.

The order also fixes the second respondent’s costs and provides that the applicant pay them.  It is the owner of commercial premises where the applicant suffered a fall on the 28^th of May 2010.  That circumstance explains the urgency of something being done to protect the applicant against possible limitations problems.  The application had sought, alternatively, relief under section 43.  That’s not the preferred alternative, from her point of view, given that it would commit her to the costs of instituting a proceeding which may prove to be unnecessarily incurred in the event some compromise is reached.

The second respondent’s cooperation is not reflected in the third respondent’s stance, which has been to do nothing.  It had been served with notice of today’s application, but not appeared when called.  It was the manager of the relevant premises.

MR MORRIS:   Your Honour, I might just clarify the statement about the third respondent having done nothing.

HIS HONOUR:   Yeah.

MR MORRIS:   A director of the third respondent did speak yesterday with Ms Lane and advised that the third respondent would not be making an appearance today.

HIS HONOUR:   I see.  Well, that suggests the fears that I had harboured that the third respondent might in the future make some complaint about the order are, perhaps, beside the point.  So, order as per initialled draft.

______________________