Application for extension of limitation period dismissed by Supreme Court of Queensland: Grapes v AAI Limited [2024] QSC 267
The Supreme Court of Queensland has recently dismissed an application brought pursuant to s 31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) (‘the Act’) to extend the limitation period for causes of action arising out of an incident that occurred on 2 September 2018.
Grapes v AAI: Applicant’s Employment & 2018 Incident Overview
Prior to the subject incident, the applicant had been employed as a paramedic by the Queensland Ambulance Service since 2007. On 2 September 2018, she responded to a single-vehicle accident, where she attended to a passenger whose arm was nearly amputated.
Thereafter, the applicant’s capacity to work as a paramedic began to deteriorate, experiencing panic attacks both throughout her workday, as well as prior to work when commuting. In December 2018, the applicant’s General Practitioner first opined that the applicant’s symptoms may relate to perimenopause. The applicant’s condition continued to worsen, and by May 2019, she reported fatigue, anxiety, agitation, and low mood. Her working conditions were subsequently adjusted.
By January 2021, the Plaintiff was effectively housebound, with her General Practitioner diagnosing PTSD and attributing this condition to her employment. The applicant made an application for compensation to WorkCover Queensland on 20 January 2021. WorkCover Queensland initially rejected her application, stating that her injury was not work-related. However, in November 2022, this decision was overturned based on a psychiatric opinion from Dr Mungomery.
The applicant instructed solicitors to act on her behalf on 27 March 2023.
Application
The applicant sought an order that the time limit for her to commence proceedings against the second respondent, her employer, be extended until 1 May 2023. She further applied for an order that the time limit to commence proceedings against the first respondent, being the CTP insurer of the vehicle involved in the subject incident, be extended until 9 November 2024. The applicant also sought leave pursuant to s 57 of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (QLD) to commence proceedings against the first and third respondents caused by the motor vehicle accident of 2 September 2018.
Section 31(2) of the Act relevantly provides:
“Where on application to a court by a person claiming to have a right of action to which this section applies, it appears to the court—
a. that a material fact of a decisive character relating to the right of action was not within the means of knowledge of the applicant until a date after the commencement of the year last preceding the expiration of the period of limitation for the action”
The applicant contended that the following facts were of an appropriate character to justify the court exercising its discretion in her favour: –
a. That she did not know the nature and extent of her psychological injury, insofar as it being permanent and would preclude her from returning to her career as a paramedic, until she became aware of the opinion of Dr Mungomery in December 2022; and
b. That she did not know the identity of the first and third respondents until her solicitors received disclosure that lead to a point-in-time registration being completed on 8 November 2023.
Thus, the matters in issue were whether the asserted facts that she relied upon were: –
- Whether the facts relied upon were material;
- Whether those facts were of a decisive nature; and
- Whether the applicant was unaware of these facts, and they were not within her means of knowledge, prior to 6 December 2022 (regarding the nature and extent of her condition) and 9 November 2023 (regarding the identity of the first and third respondents).
Decision
The Court dismissed the application.
The Court was satisfied that the facts relied on were material facts, noting that ‘material facts’ as defined in s 30(1) of the Act includes facts as to the nature and extent of a personal injury, facts as to causation, and facts pertaining to the identity of the person against whom a right of action lies. Similarly, the Court was satisfied that these material facts were of a decisive nature.
However, the Court was not satisfied that the material facts of a decisive nature were not “within the means of knowledge of the applicant until a date after the commencement of the year last preceding the expiration of the period of limitation for the action”.
Regarding the extent and nature of her injury, the Court found that by April 2021, the applicant had the means to ascertain that the subject incident caused her PTSD. This conclusion was based on a written request to WorkCover Queensland in April 2021, seeking to amend the recorded accident date to match the incident in question. As to the issue of the identity of the first and third respondents, the Court opined that the applicant ought to have taken the reasonable step of instructing solicitors to act on her behalf to assist her in this regard earlier than she did. It reasoned that had she done so, their identities would have been discovered by early 2022.
This article was written by Will Deicke of Littles Lawyers. If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.
