Zaporozhki v AAI Limited (trading as GIO)

Zaporozhki v AAI Limited (trading as GIO) is a case involving a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr Zaporozhki, and the defendant, AAI Limited (trading as GIO), in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Zaporozhki, who suffered physical and neurological injuries, seeks damages for the defendant's alleged negligence in failing to provide timely medical treatment and payments. The relief sought includes compensation for professional negligence, interest, and costs. The dispute hinges on the procedural aspects of the case, specifically the service of the claim and the renewal of the claim under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The legal issues in this case revolve around the procedural requirements for service of the claim and the renewal of the claim. The plaintiff must demonstrate that he served the claim on the defendant within one year of filing, as mandated by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiff alleged that he served the claim by post, but failed to provide supporting evidence. Additionally, the plaintiff did not serve the claim within the statutory period and did not take further steps in the proceedings for two years after alleging he served the claim. The plaintiff applied to extend the limitation periods that may otherwise have expired, citing COVID-19 as a reason for the delay. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve the claim and if there was another good reason to renew the claim.

The court found that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that he served the claim on the defendant. The plaintiff's assertion of service without supporting evidence was insufficient. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not make reasonable efforts to serve the claim within the one-year period, and did not take further steps in the proceedings for two years after claiming service. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to renew the claim, finding that there was no reasonable basis for extending the limitation periods. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet the statutory requirements for service and renewal of the claim.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application for renewal of the claim be dismissed, and that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the application. The question of costs in relation to the defendant's applications was adjourned to a date to be fixed.