Home » Personal Injury Quantum Database (Qld) » John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)

John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)

[2025] QDC 65 · Byrne KC DCJ

In plain language

This was a follow-up decision about who should pay the legal costs of an earlier court application. In the earlier application, Ms John had successfully obtained permission from the court to extend the time limit for bringing a personal injuries claim against Millenium Hi-Tech Group, because the normal deadline had passed. The judge then had to decide who should bear the costs of that application. Ms John argued there should be no order for costs, partly because the company had disputed whether a required notice had been served. The judge accepted there is no strict rule that a party seeking the court's indulgence must pay the other side's costs, but found it remains a strong guiding principle. The real reason the application was needed was the failure of Ms John's former solicitor to protect her position. The judge held the company's stance was not unreasonable and ordered Ms John to pay the company's costs on the standard basis.

Incident & injury

Not described, costs decision following a limitation extension application for an intended personal injuries claim

Quick facts

Date of judgment
23 May 2025
Proceeding
Costs
Plaintiff outcome
Unsuccessful
Plaintiff age at injury
Not stated
Occupation
Not stated

Outcome

Following an earlier order granting the applicant leave under s 59(2) of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 to extend the limitation period, the court determined costs of that application. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the standard basis, the court finding the need for the application arose from the applicant's former solicitor's failure to protect her position and that the respondent's stance was not unreasonable.

Key issues

  • Costs of limitation extension application
  • Indulgence of the court
  • PIPA s 59(2)
📑 Cite this case (AGLC4)

John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2025] QDC 65

When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.

Learn more about public liability claims in Queensland.

About the reviewer

Sean J. Roche
Director and Principal Solicitor, Roche Legal

Sean is the Director of Roche Legal and leads the firm's Springwood office. He holds a Bachelor of Laws from the Queensland University of Technology and a Bachelor of Business Management from the University of Queensland. Sean was admitted to practice in the Supreme Court of Queensland in 2016 and in the High Court of Australia in 2018, and holds an unrestricted principal practising certificate. He is a member of the Queensland Law Society and the Australian Lawyers Alliance.

About Sean Roche →

← Back to the case archive