Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering P/L
Case
•
[2003] QSC 193
•26 June 2003
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering P/L [2003] QSC 193
[2003] QSC 193
26 June 2003
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Nicholls v Brisbane Slipways and Engineering P/L was brought before the Queensland Supreme Court, with the applicants seeking to commence dependency proceedings against the respondent following the death of William Herschel Nicholls. The deceased was killed on a vessel off the coast of Western Australia, and the applicants, who were seeking to bring the proceedings in Queensland, delivered a notice of claim outside of the three-year limitation period. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants should be granted leave to commence proceedings under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2001 (Qld). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicants were entitled to commence proceedings after the limitation period had expired, and if so, whether the conditions set out in the Act could be met.
The court considered the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2001 and the relevant case law on the limitation of actions in personal injury cases. It found that while the limitation period had indeed expired, the applicants were entitled to seek leave under section 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The court further held that the applicants could satisfy the conditions set out in section 18(2) of the Act, including the requirement to give notice under section 9(1) of the Act and to comply with various other provisions of the Act. The court granted the applicants leave to proceed with the claim, subject to the conditions outlined in the order, and also granted all necessary abridgments of time, ordered the costs of the application to be paid by the applicants, and allowed each party liberty to apply on three days notice in writing.
The court considered the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2001 and the relevant case law on the limitation of actions in personal injury cases. It found that while the limitation period had indeed expired, the applicants were entitled to seek leave under section 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. The court further held that the applicants could satisfy the conditions set out in section 18(2) of the Act, including the requirement to give notice under section 9(1) of the Act and to comply with various other provisions of the Act. The court granted the applicants leave to proceed with the claim, subject to the conditions outlined in the order, and also granted all necessary abridgments of time, ordered the costs of the application to be paid by the applicants, and allowed each party liberty to apply on three days notice in writing.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Res Judicata
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
State of Queensland v Moon [2014] NSWSC 1698
Cases Citing This Decision
20
Hamilton v Merck & Co Inc
[2006] NSWCA 55
Fanti v State of Qld
[2005] QSC 393
Andrews v BDS Technical Services P/L
[2003] QSC 469
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
1
Thomas v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd
[2002] QCA 160
Elliott v Bali Bungy Co
[2002] NSWSC 906
Koop v Bebb
[1951] HCA 77