Young v BL and St Nominees P/L

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Young v BL & ST Nominees P/L [2002] QSC 135
PARTIES:	KERRY LYNNE YOUNG (plaintiff) v BL & ST NOMINEES PTY LTD ACN 005 522 029 (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S 233 of 1996 S327 of 2002
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Limitation Period
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	2 May 2002
JUDGES:	Cullinane J
ORDER:	Application dismissed with costs to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL – PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – whether order by Registrar to be set aside – whether Defendant entitled to seek orders – where application to commence action after expiration of limitation period – whether justice of the case requires extension of limitation period
COUNSEL:	T Moon for the plaintiff M O’Sullivan for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Connolly Suthers for the plaintiff Boulton Cleary & Kern for the defendants

1. There are two applications before the Court.

1. The Applicant/Plaintiff (Plaintiff) seeks an order extending the limitation period within which to institute proceedings against the Defendant/Respondent (Defendant) her former employer, in respect of an incident which occurred in about July 1992 and in respect of her work activities generally during the period prior to 2 October 1993 so that it expires on 2 November 1995.  This is the relevant date for the purposes of this application because the writ of summons issued on 2 October 1996.

1. There is an application by the Defendant in which a number of orders are sought.  As matters developed however it became clear that the order which the Defendant sought was the setting aside of an order by the Registrar in early 2001 in which the writ of summons was reviewed each year from 2 October 1997.  The last yearly period for which it was renewed was the year commencing 2 October 2000.  The precise date upon which this order was made does not appear but it occurred early in 2001.

1. The power to renew a writ is contained in Rule 24 which provides so far as is relevant as follows:

“[24]  Duration and renewal of claim

24   (1)  A claim remains in force for 1 year starting on the day it is filed.

(2)     If the claim has not been served on a defendant and the registrar is satisfied that reasonable efforts have been made to serve the defendant or that there is another good reason to renew the claim, the registrar may renew the claim for further periods, of not more than 1 year at a time, starting on the day after the claim would otherwise end.

(3)     The claim may be renewed whether or not it is in force.

(4)     However, the court’s leave must be obtained before a claim may be renewed for a period any part of which falls on or after the 5^th anniversary of the day on which the claim was originally filed.”

1. The power of the Registrar to make the order was…