Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
- Unreported Judgment
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Application No 543 of 2003
DAVID ALLAN RUDDLE
BARTLETT ENGINEERING PTY LTD ACN 074 324 637
HIS HONOUR: This is an application by David Ruddle who suffered injuries whilst using an elevating crane (cherry picker) on the 3rd of September 2000. He has already commenced a claim against his employer and Work Cover, but brings a claim against the present respondent, the supplier or manufacturer of the cherry picker.
The respondent, though served with this application, does not appear to contest the application. See the affidavit of Sandra Ah Shay, filed by leave on 1st December 2003.
The material filed on behalf of the applicant discloses that on the 12th of December 2002 a notice of claim was issued against Bartlett Engineering as respondent. There was no response to that notice of claim. There is no entity, Bartlett Engineering.
This made necessary the service on the correct respondent, Bartlett Engineering Pty Ltd of the notice of claim. This was done on the 1st or 2nd of September 2003 which meant that it was inside the period of limitation. This may not matter in any event as the applicant may proceed with leave if his claim falls within the terms of section 77D of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (PIPA).
There has been no response either to the filing of the notice of claim delivered on Bartlett Engineering Pty Ltd. As a consequence, and by virtue of section 13 of PIPA the requirements for the giving the notice of claim are “conclusively presumed to be satisfied.”
The fact that the limitation period has passed does not prevent the commencement of proceedings so long as they are commenced if not more than six months has elapsed after the delivery of the complying notice of claim and it is not later than the 18th of December 2003. This latter date, of course, gives some sense of urgency to the application, but in any event it is within six months of the delivery of the notice of claim which occurred at the latest on the 2nd of September 2003.
In those circumstances it seems appropriate that leave should be given for the commencement of the proceedings to stop the conditions which attach to it the usual ones about the proceedings being stayed until there is compliance with part 1 of chapter 2 of PIPA.
I therefore make orders in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers.
- Published Case Name:
David Allan Ruddle v Bartlett Engineering Pty Ltd
- Shortened Case Name:
Ruddle v Bartlett Engineering Pty Ltd
 QSC 450
01 Dec 2003