SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Paterson v Leigh & Anor [2008] QSC 277
PARTIES:
ROBIN ANN PATERSON
(applicant)
v
VINCENT THOMAS LEIGH
(first respondent)
and
NOMINAL DEFENDANT
(second respondent)FILE NO:
S527 of 2008
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court in Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:
November 11 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:
November 3
JUDGE:
McMeekin J
ORDER:
That the applicant be given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring:1.
(a) The conference being held pursuant to s 51A and s 51B of the Act and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 51C of the Act;
(b) In the event of the parties agreeing to dispense with the holding of the conference pursuant to s 51A(4) of the Act the date of such agreement;
(c) In the event of the court making an order dispensing with the holding of the compulsory conference, pursuant to s 51A(5)(b) of the Act, the date of such order.
No order as to costs.2.
CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS - APPLICATION OF THE STATUTES TO PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION - MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE - where the applicant seeks an extension of time under s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) within which to commence proceedings for damages as a result of personal injuries suffered in motor vehicle accident – where the application is made within the limitation period – where all the requirements under the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) have not yet been complied with
Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994, s37, s51A, s51B, s57
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited
Gitsham & Ors v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd [2002] QCA 310, followed
Winters v Doyle [2006] 2 Qd R 285, followed
COUNSEL:
G Crow for the applicant
R Dickson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Chris Trevor and Associates for the applicant
WHD Lawyers for the respondent
McMEEKIN J: The applicant, Robin Ann Paterson, claims that she sustained personal injuries in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 19 November 2005. She was then aged 41 years, having been born on 10 February 1964. The limitation period relevant to her action, at the time of the hearing, was due to expire in two weeks time. She applies for an extension of that limitation period pursuant to s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (‘the Act’).
Despite still being within the limitation period, the application is opposed. The limitation period for the applicant’s claim will expire on 19 November 2008. The application was filed on 27 October 2008, a little over three weeks prior to the expiration of the limitation period.
Ms Paterson cannot commence her proceedings because she is yet to comply with some of the requirements of the Act. Principally there is yet to be a conference between the parties as envisaged by s 51A. No certificate of readiness signed by…
Continue reading Paterson v Leigh
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Paterson v Leigh [2008] QSC 277
- Case
- [2008] QSC 277
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to commence proceedings within a specified time frame, given that not all statutory requirements had been met. The court considered the statutory framework, the discretion granted by the Act, and the implications of allowing the proceedings to commence outside of the prescribed time frame.
The court found that it had the discretion to grant an extension of time under s 57(2)(b) of the Act if it was satisfied that it was just and equitable to do so. The court considered the applicant's compliance with the statutory requirements and the potential prejudice to the respondent if the proceedings were allowed to proceed. The court held that it was appropriate to grant the application for leave, subject to certain conditions, to ensure that the statutory requirements were met and to prevent potential prejudice to the respondent.
The court ordered that the applicant be given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the specified events occurring. The applicant was not granted an order for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
That the applicant be given leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of one of the following events occurring:1.
(a) The conference being held pursuant to s 51A and s 51B of the Act and mandatory final offers being exchanged in accordance with s 51C of the Act;
(b) In the event of the parties agreeing to dispense with the holding of the conference pursuant to s 51A(4) of the Act the date of such agreement;
(c) In the event of the court making an order dispensing with the holding of the compulsory conference, pursuant to s 51A(5)(b) of the Act, the date of such order.
No order as to costs.2.
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.