John v Millenium Hi-Tech Group Pty Ltd (No. 2)
[2025] QDC 65 · Byrne KC DCJ
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
- Claim type
- PIPA Public Liability
- Proceeding
- Costs
- Plaintiff outcome
- Unsuccessful
- Plaintiff age at injury
- 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
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.