Murdock v Lipman

In the case of Murdock v Lipman, the plaintiff, Mr Murdock, sought to bring a personal injury claim against the defendant, Mr Lipman, after the statutory limitation period had expired. The dispute involved whether it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period, given that the presumptive prejudice was largely mitigated by the availability of statements obtained during a WorkCover investigation. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were whether it was appropriate to extend the limitation period in light of the mitigating factors and whether the insurer, who had been substituted for the deregistered insured after the expiration of the second limitation bar, could be subject to an extension of the limitation period under section 601AG of the Corporations Act.

The court held that the extension of the limitation period was just and reasonable, as the prejudice suffered by the plaintiff was largely mitigated by the availability of the statements from the WorkCover investigation. The court noted that while the plaintiff's claim had been compromised by the limitation period, the availability of the statements reduced the impact of that compromise. Regarding the insurer, the court found that it had jurisdiction to extend the limitation period as against the insurer under section 601AG of the Corporations Act, as the insurer was substituted for the deregistered insured after the expiration of the second limitation bar. The court also considered the implications for the employer's right to recover contribution from other tortfeasors and whether the employer was precluded from seeking indemnity under section 151Z(1)(d) of the relevant legislation. The court determined that the employer's claims for indemnity were statute-barred, but this did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing the action out of time if it was deemed fair and just to do so.

The court granted leave for the plaintiff to bring the proceedings out of time, finding it was fair and just to do so in the circumstances. The court further ordered that the insurer, having been substituted for the deregistered insured, was subject to an extension of the limitation period. The court's decision allowed the plaintiff to pursue his claim, despite the passage of the statutory limitation period, and clarified the jurisdiction to extend the limitation period against the insurer.