Sheehy v Hobbs - [2010] QSC 108

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sheehy v Hobbs [2010] QSC 108

PARTIES:

CATRIONA MCGUINESS SHEEHY

Applicant

And

ANDREW COLIN HOBBS

1^st Respondent

AJNINE MAREE HOBBS

2^nd Respondent

FILE NO/S:

S93 of 2010

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

9 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

29 March 2010

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDER:

Declare that the claimant has remedied the non-compliance in the notice of claim.

Leave to make further submissions on the form of any further orders within seven days.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH DISCRETION EXERCISED – where applicant had a limited education and no knowledge of legal matters – where legal advice had been sought in time – where poverty is a reasonable excuse – whether significant prejudice to the respondents

Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 9(3), s 9(5), s 18(1)(c), s 18(2), s 43

Askew v Eacham Shire Council [2006] QDC 079

Perdis v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555

Piper v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557

COUNSEL:

A. Arnold for the applicant

A.P.J. Collins for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

Rees R & Sydney Jones for the applicant

Carter Newell Lawyers for the respondents

McMeekin J: On 7 March 2007 the applicant, Catriona Sheehy, fell down a set of stairs at the respondents’ premises. As a result she suffered incomplete quadriplegia as well as other significant injuries. She seeks to claim damages against the respondents.

The applicant’s claim is governed by the provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA). On 1 March 2010 I gave leave to the applicant, pursuant to s 43 of PIPA, to commence proceedings in the court for damages because of the imminent expiration of the limitation period. That leave was given without prejudice to the respondents’ rights.

The issue now for consideration is whether that claim for damages should be permitted to proceed further. It is common ground that the applicant failed to comply with s 9(3) of PIPA in that she failed to provide notice of her claim to the respondents within nine months of the occurrence of her injury. In those circumstances the legislation requires that she provide a reasonable explanation for the delay by separate notice: s 9(5) PIPA. The relevant non-compliance that the respondents have identified is the failure, they say, of the applicant to provide that reasonable explanation for the delay. In response to that complaint a statutory declaration was sworn by Mrs Sheehy on 16 December 2009. In that declaration Mrs Sheehy effectively gave the same account as she has done before me.

The application is brought pursuant to s 18(1)(c) of PIPA[1] which provides, so far as is relevant, as follows:
[1]Whilst the application made reference only to s 18(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, Mr Arnold, for the applicant, made clear at an early stage that he was relying on both sub-paragraphs and Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sheehy v Hobbs

Details

AGLC: Sheehy v Hobbs [2010] QSC 108
Case: [2010] QSC 108
Decision Date: 9 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheehy v Hobbs involved the applicant seeking to extend the limitation period for bringing a personal injury claim. The applicant had a limited education and no prior knowledge of legal matters. Despite this, legal advice was sought in a timely manner. The applicant argued that her poverty served as a reasonable excuse for the delay, and that the respondents would not suffer significant prejudice if the limitation period were extended. The court was required to determine whether the principles for extending the limitation period in personal injury cases applied in this instance.

The court considered the established principles governing the extension or postponement of limitation periods in personal injury cases, emphasising the importance of fairness and justice in such matters. The court recognised that the applicant's limited education and lack of legal knowledge, combined with her prompt seeking of legal advice, were significant factors. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the applicant's poverty as a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the claim. The court also weighed the potential prejudice to the respondents if the limitation period were extended, ultimately finding that it was not significant enough to override the other factors.

Based on these considerations, the court found in favour of the applicant. The court exercised its discretion to extend the limitation period, recognising the applicant's circumstances and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondents. The court declared that the applicant had remedied the non-compliance in the notice of claim and granted leave to make further submissions on the form of any further orders within seven days.

The orders made by the court declared that the applicant had remedied the non-compliance in the notice of claim and granted leave to make further submissions on the form of any further orders within seven days. This decision highlights the importance of considering individual circumstances, such as limited education, lack of legal knowledge, and poverty, when determining whether to extend limitation periods in personal injury cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

Declare that the claimant has remedied the non-compliance in the notice of claim.

Leave to make further submissions on the form of any further orders within seven days.

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.

CITATION:	Sheehy v Hobbs [2010] QSC 108
PARTIES:	CATRIONA MCGUINESS SHEEHY Applicant And ANDREW COLIN HOBBS 1^st Respondent AJNINE MAREE HOBBS 2^nd Respondent
FILE NO/S:	S93 of 2010
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	29 March 2010
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDER:	Declare that the claimant has remedied the non-compliance in the notice of claim. Leave to make further submissions on the form of any further orders within seven days.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION PERIODS – EXTENSION OF TIME IN PERSONAL INJURIES MATTERS – PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH DISCRETION EXERCISED – where applicant had a limited education and no knowledge of legal matters – where legal advice had been sought in time – where poverty is a reasonable excuse – whether significant prejudice to the respondents Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld), s 9(3), s 9(5), s 18(1)(c), s 18(2), s 43 Askew v Eacham Shire Council [2006] QDC 079 Perdis v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555 Piper v Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557
COUNSEL:	A. Arnold for the applicant A.P.J. Collins for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Rees R & Sydney Jones for the applicant Carter Newell Lawyers for the respondents