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 Hope Island store, in support of a prospective claim for personal injury. Coles objected, arguing the application was premature, that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate he 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. However, the court refused the CCTV orders becuase Coles’ evidence was that no footage of the incident existed, and a respondent cannot disclose something that does not exist; nor could the applicant compel a statutory declaration “explaining” the absence of footage, since section 27(3) permits verification of information actually provided, not explanations of assertions the respondent denies. The applicant partially succeeded in that Coles was required to provide information about prior similar incidents falls within 14 days. Coles was ordered to pay 20% of the applicant’s costs.
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) to extend the limitation period for a medical negligence claim arising from pelvic mesh implant surgery performed in November 2013. The plaintiff had suffered chronic pain since the operation, but none of her many treating specialists – nor the lawyers running a class action against the mesh manufacturer she had joined – ever suggested her surgeon had been negligent. It was not until January 2018, in a consultation with a US-based gynaecologist, that she learned a qualified expert considered the mesh should not have been used. Bradley J held that her earlier suspicions and beliefs, including strongly worded submissions to a Senate inquiry, were not knowledge: without a supportive expert opinion, a reasonable person properly advised would not have regarded the known facts as justifying proceedings, particularly where the likely damages were modest against litigation costs exceeding $150,000. The extension was granted.
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) to extend time for a medical negligence claim arising from TomoTherapy radiation treatment the plaintiff received in 2012 for a gluteal desmoid tumour, which caused osteoradionecrosis and fractures of her sacrum. Despite years of persistent inquiry – including two Health Ombudsman complaints and approaches to multiple law firms – no specialist had ever told her the dose was excessive. The material facts arrived with an expert report in February 2020 establishing that the 60 Gy dose exceeded the international standard of 56 Gy and carried a 20–30% fracture risk against the 1–2% expected at the standard dose. Sullivan J drew the distinction between suspicion and knowledge, and held that the plaintiff’s periods of inactivity – explained by her deteriorating health, financial hardship, and law firms declining to act on a no-win no-fee basis – did not mean she had failed to take all reasonable steps. The extension was granted.
Judgments relating to extension of time – refused
Grapes v AAI Limited [2024] QSC 267: The Supreme Court dismissed an application by a former paramedic to extend the limitation period for a claim arising from a single vehicle accident she attended in September 2018, from which she developed PTSD. She relied on a December 2022 psychiatric opinion that her condition was permanent, that she could not return to paramedic work, and that the accident caused it. Copley J held these were not facts of a decisive character: by March 2021 she believed her career was over, had suffered a substantial income loss, and – with her psychologist – had attributed her condition to the accident, as her own April 2021 email to WorkCover seeking to backdate her injury demonstrated. She already had a worthwhile claim; the later opinion merely made it “more worthwhile”. On the identity of the CTP insurer and driver, the court accepted this was beyond her personal capacity to discover and was a fact of a decisive character – but held that the reasonable step, from mid-2021, was to instruct solicitors, and with a solicitor’s assistance the insurer’s identity would have been within her means of knowledge by early 2022. The application was refused.
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.