Procedural decisions are court rulings that deal with how a case is managed, rather than the final outcome on liability or damages. These include applications for disclosure, extensions of time, or strike-outs of claims. While they don’t determine whether someone wins or loses their case, they can significantly impact whether a claim proceeds to trial or how it’s prepared.
Judgments relating to disclosure
Sinclair v Coles Supermarkets [2024] QSC 175: This was a pre-litigation application under section 27 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002. The plaintiff sought orders compelling Coles to disclose CCTV footage and records of similar previous incidents at the store, in support of a prospective claim for personal injury. Coles objected, arguing the application was premature, that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate she was a genuine prospective claimant, and that the material sought was not required to be disclosed under PIPA. The court found that the plaintiff had presented a credible basis for a future claim and that disclosure was reasonably required to comply with statutory obligations under the Act. Orders were made compelling Coles to provide the requested documents, including CCTV footage and prior incident records, in accordance with the court’s supervisory role under section 27.
Judgments relating to extension of time – granted
Purcell v Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation & Anor [2024] QSC 58: This was a section 31 application to extend the limitation period for a workplace injury claim arising from a 2013 slip on wet stairs. The plaintiff relied on a 2022 orthopaedic report that revealed the likelihood of early knee replacement and permanent incapacity, which materially changed the value of his claim. The court accepted this was a material fact of a decisive character not previously known, found the plaintiff had acted reasonably throughout, and granted the extension.
Desmond-Bryzak v Lander [2024] QSC 72: This was an application under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), in which the plaintiff sought leave to bring a claim for damages outside the usual limitation period. The alleged injury occurred in 2014 when the plaintiff was struck by a reversing garbage truck. The court considered whether the applicant had a material fact of a decisive character that was not within their knowledge until after the limitation period expired. The plaintiff relied on updated medical evidence obtained in 2022 that clarified the extent and significance of his psychiatric condition. The court accepted that this new medical evidence was a material fact of a decisive character, and that the plaintiff had acted promptly in pursuing the claim after learning of it. An extension of time was granted, allowing the claim to proceed.
Jones v Central Queensland Hospital and Health Service [2024] QSC 165: This was an application under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), where Mr Jones sought leave to bring a claim for surgical negligence outside the standard limitation period. He alleged that negligent spinal surgery in 2017 caused him lasting impairment, but only received key medical evidence in 2023 confirming the negligence and long-term effects. The court accepted that the updated expert opinion was a material fact of a decisive character not previously within his knowledge, and that he acted promptly upon discovering it. An extension of time was granted, allowing the claim to proceed.
Judgments relating to extension of time – refused
Grapes v AAI Limited [2024] QSC 267: In this decision, the Supreme Court dismissed an application by a former paramedic seeking to extend the limitation period for filing a personal injury claim arising from a 2018 motor vehicle accident she attended in the course of her work. The applicant suffered from PTSD and argued that material facts about her psychological injury and its causation were not known to her until late 2022. Justice Copley found that although the applicant had obtained psychiatric opinions in 2021, she was already aware, or had it ‘within her means of knowledge’ by April 2021, that the accident had caused her psychological injury. The Court concluded that the facts relied upon were not of a “decisive character” under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) because the applicant already had sufficient insight into her condition and potential claim well before the limitation date expired. The court refused to extend the time limitation.
Update (2025): The applicant appealed the decision but was unsuccessful because the former paramedic had not taken all reasonable steps to discover these facts within time. The Court held that:
- By mid-2021, the appellant had sufficient insight into the severity and cause of her psychological injury and was reasonably expected to have consulted solicitors about a potential claim.
- Despite serious PTSD symptoms, she had demonstrated capacity to pursue a WorkCover claim, engage with lawyers, and follow complex administrative processes over a two-year period.
- Critically, because she knew of the involvement of two motor vehicles in the accident she attended, she was expected to take reasonable steps to identify the drivers and their insurer.
- Once she retained her solicitor in 2023, the identity of the CTP insurer was discovered within about 8 months. Had she taken that step earlier, she likely would have obtained the same information by early 2022.
The Court confirmed that the appellant’s failure to attempt to identify the at-fault driver or their insurer, or instruct solicitors earlier meant she could not satisfy the requirement under s 30(c)(ii) that she had taken “all reasonable steps” to find out the material facts before the limitation expired.
Vivian v Gameover Pty Ltd [2024] QSC 263: Mr Vivian sought leave under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to bring a damages claim out of time for injuries allegedly sustained in 2018 while lifting and carrying heavy batteries at his workplace. He argued that a material fact of a decisive character was not known to him until receiving a neurologist’s report in December 2022, which concluded that his combined physical and psychological injuries would permanently prevent him from working. While acknowledging the seriousness of his condition, the court found that Mr Vivian already possessed a “critical mass of information” before August 2022 particularly as he had declared total incapacity in two Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) applications made in early 2022. At that point, he had received multiple medical reports indicating permanent impairment. The court held he should have reasonably appreciated the significance of his injuries and potential for a worthwhile claim before the limitation period expired. The court rejected his application and denied the extension.
Strike-out applications
Abood v State of Queensland [2024] QSC 257: This was a strike-out application brought by the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth of Australia. The plaintiff, a former youth detainee, alleged psychological injury arising from excessive force used during his detention. The plaintiff was self-represented and prepared his own pleadings. The court struck out the claim on the basis that it did not disclose a legally recognised cause of action. In particular, the court noted that the pleadings failed to articulate any recognised tort, did not identify relevant duties owed by the defendants, and lacked sufficient factual clarity. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff, with some limited exceptions. The decision underscores the risks self-represented litigants face in navigating complex legal claims without proper legal assistance.