Guljas v Nixon

[2009] QDC 372

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3061 of 2009

PAINITE GULJAS	Applicant
and
TRISHA MAREE NIXON AND QBE INSURANCE (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED (ACN 003191035)	Respondents

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/11/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 s 57(2)(b)

Order made without an oral hearing, upon "consent" of respondents - that consent and their entry of appearance not filed in time to reach the court for the listed hearing

HIS HONOUR: Before the Court is an originating application proposed to proceed without an oral hearing from the time it was filed on the 27th of October 2009. It seeks relief under s 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 of the kind successfully applied for in Paterson v. Leigh [2008] QSC 277 (which I had occasion to consider in an earlier application in today's list brought under corresponding provisions of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002).

The limitation period in respect of a motor vehicle accident in which the applicant, one of the drivers, was injured will expire next month. There is not going to be time for the ordinary pre-litigation procedures mandated by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 to be completed before expiration of the limitation period.

The applicant is fortunate compared with Paterson in having the cooperation of the respondents, in particular the second respondent insurer. It has signed a "consent to order of Registrar" which is dated a couple of days ago; it was filed with the notice of address for service for the respondents only after the Court began to sit this morning. That has caused the application to proceed rather untidily as when the matter was reached in the ordinary course there was nothing available on the file to indicate the respondents' attitude, the implication or even that they had been served. It was unrealistic on the applicant's part to expect that material filed so late would get to the relevant judge in time.

The submission accompanying the application is dated 26th October 2009. With an unexplained prescience it refers to and relies on the two documents that were filed in the registry in the middle of this morning. In the circumstances of the consent there's no need as there was the other matter referred to (Marion Moore v. Australian National Car Parks Pty Ltd & another, 2875 of 2009) to look into the merits of the application.

I have perused the affidavit material relied on which before becoming aware of the consent and suffice to say that that material would support the making of the order. Order as per in the short draft.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Guljas v Nixon, the applicant, Mr. Guljas, applied for an order to extend the limitation period for his motor vehicle accident claim under section 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994. The respondents, Trisha Maree Nixon and QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited, were the other driver and insurer involved in the accident, respectively. The case was heard by Judge Robin QC in the District Court of Queensland.

The court had to decide whether the limitation period for Mr. Guljas' claim should be extended given that the ordinary pre-litigation procedures mandated by the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 would not be completed before the limitation period expired. The court had to consider the consent of the respondents, the cooperation of the insurer, and the merits of the application, as well as the relevant legal precedents.

The court noted that the limitation period for motor vehicle accident claims was set to expire the following month, and there was insufficient time for the ordinary pre-litigation procedures to be completed before the limitation period expired. However, the applicant had the cooperation of the respondents, particularly the insurer, which had signed a "consent to order of Registrar." The court found that the material relied on by the applicant would support the making of the order. Consequently, the court made an order extending the limitation period as requested by Mr. Guljas.

The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the text, but it can be inferred that the court granted the applicant's request to extend the limitation period for his motor vehicle accident claim under section 57(2)(b) of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established