A useful recent case has been added to the commentary in the By Lawyers Personal injury – QLD publication.

In Folwell v Mayer [2020] QSC 162 the court allowed the applicant an extension of time. The circumstances were that the applicant had issued a complying notice of claim under Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) within the limitation period, but had not otherwise completed the pre-litigation procedures required under the Act and was out of time to commence proceedings.

The applicant applied under s 59 of the Act for leave to commence proceedings even though the limitation period had expired.

The court reviewed the legislation and the cases on such applications, in some detail.

The factual circumstances were also examined closely, especially the chronology of the steps taken in relation to the matter by the applicant and her solicitors. These factual details proved to be determinative, as is usually the case in such applications.

The court found that the applicant herself had been less than pro-active in pursuing her claim, but further found that ‘… on the material before the court, the failure to conscientiously comply with the legislative requirements… rests predominantly with the applicant’s solicitor, rather than the applicant herself.’

The court also noted that ‘…the respondent does not identify any specific prejudice it will suffer if the application is granted.’

In the circumstances, notwithstanding the delay, the court determined that the applicant had an arguable claim and there could still be a fair trial. Accordingly the court ruled that ‘…the interests of justice favour exercising the discretion to grant the application to alter the limitation period under s 59’.

The case has been added to the commentary in Personal injury – QLD under Limitation periods.