DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Morris v Gold Coast City Council [2006] QDC 172
PARTIES:
MARJORIE MORRIS
Applicantv
GOLD COAST CITY COUNCIL
DefendantFILE NO/S:
D707/2005
DIVISION:
Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Southport
DELIVERED ON:
3 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Southport
HEARING DATE:
23 January 2006
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
The applicant be granted leave pursuant to s 18(1)(c)(ii) of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 to proceed further with her claim despite non-compliance with s 9 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002
CATCHWORDS:
APPLICATION – Personal injury – Non compliance with pre-court procedures of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 – Reasonable excuse – Court’s discretion to authorise claim to proceed despite non-compliance
Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002
Weeks v The Nominal Defendant [2005] QCA 118
Piper v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557
Daniels v Leggatt [2005] QCA 377
Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R 418
COUNSEL:
Mr D Rangiah for the applicant
Mr K Howe for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Maurice Blackburn Cashman for the applicant
O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett for the respondent
Introduction
This is an application by the applicant, Marjorie Morris, against the respondent, Gold Coast City Council, seeking (relevantly) the following orders:
[1] Declaration that the applicant provided a reasonable excuse for the delay in giving the respondent a Part 1 notice of claim pursuant to s 9 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA);
[2] Declaration that the applicant gave the respondent a complying Part 1 notice of claim pursuant to s 9 of PIPA on 31 May 2005;
[3] In the alternative, that pursuant to s.18(1)(c)(i) of PIPA, the Court declare that the applicant has remedied any non-compliance;
[4] In the alternative, that the applicant be given leave pursuant to s 18(1)(c)(ii) of PIPA to proceed further with the claim despite non-compliance.
Facts
The applicant was born on 24 July 1925 and is now 80 years of age. On 13 January 2004, when aged 78, she was injured as a result of stepping into a concealed hole in the grass between the kerbing and the footpath on Cougal Street, Southport outside the Gold Coast Specialist Medical Centre and Gold Coast Hospital. Photographs of the concealed hole (which appear to have been taken shortly after the date of injury) were intended to have been sent as an enclosure with a handwritten letter from the applicant to the respondent on 24 March 2004. The applicant’s letter of 24 March 2004 enclosed an appointment letter from the Gold Coast Hospital (it appears that the applicant was on her way to an appointment at the Gold Coast Hospital when the injury occurred), a letter from the applicant’s doctor (Dr Simon Carter) in respect of her injuries, a letter from an eye-witness to the accident and various receipts in respect of the applicant’s medical costs relating to the injury.
The applicant omitted to include the photographs to which she had referred in her initial letter of 24 March 2004 to the respondent, and these photographs…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Morris v Gold Coast City Council 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] QDC 172
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on whether Morris had a reasonable excuse for her failure to comply with the pre-court procedures, and if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit her claim to proceed. The court was required to consider the evidence provided by Morris regarding the circumstances that led to her non-compliance, and whether those circumstances constituted a reasonable excuse under section 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Act.
The court found that Morris had a reasonable excuse for her non-compliance with the pre-court procedures. She had demonstrated that she had acted promptly in seeking medical treatment and that this had resulted in a delay in obtaining the necessary medical reports. The court accepted that this delay was beyond Morris’s control and was not due to any fault or neglect on her part. The court further found that Morris had made diligent efforts to comply with the statutory requirements as soon as possible after the delay was resolved. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court exercised its discretion under section 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Act and granted Morris leave to proceed with her claim despite the non-compliance. The orders made by the court were that Morris be granted leave to proceed further with her claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
The applicant be granted leave pursuant to s 18(1)(c)(ii) of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 to proceed further with her claim despite non-compliance with s 9 of Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002
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.