Klarich v Tiger Moth Joy Rides Pty Ltd
[2004] QDC 571
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Klarich v Tiger Moth Joy Rides Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 571
- Add to List
Klarich v Tiger Moth Joy Rides Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 571
Klarich v Tiger Moth Joy Rides Pty Ltd[2004] QDC 571
[2004] QDC 571
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No BD3940 of 2004
SHAWN MICHAEL KLARICH | Applicant |
and | |
TIGER MOTH JOY RIDES PTY LTD (ACN 051 531 376) | First Respondent |
and | |
ALLAN DUNBAR | Second Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 22/11/2004
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 - special provision made in order for leave to start a proceeding under s 43 that respondent's consent not prejudice his ability to raise limitations point under legislation about civil aviation |
HIS HONOUR: This is a last minute application by Shawn Michael Klarich under section 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 for leave to commence proceedings against the respondents arising out of the crash of an aircraft that occurred on the 21st of November 2001. The limitation period expired over the weekend just past in circumstances giving the applicant an extra day.
The second respondent has appeared and consented to the orders sought, the principal ones of which relating to it are the granting of leave to commence a proceeding and the pronouncing of a stay which the PIPA imposes anyway until the pre-litigation procedures have been complied with.
The second respondent has a particular concern which has been attended to by the Court's adding to the draft order paragraph 6, as follows:
"The second respondent's consenting to the above orders does not prejudice his ability to raise any limitations defence that may be open to him under legislation relating to civil aviation."
Ms Mooney (appearing for the second respondent) is notprepared to announce a final position on that issue.
PIPA procedures have been underway for some time. The unco-operative attitude of the first respondent which, having had two different solicitors acting in the past, is now self-represented has been largely responsible for the delay that's attended the matter.
The second respondent has previously been brought to the Court and Judge Boyce on 20th of December 2002 in 4769 of 2002 made orders which were necessary to overcome the situation in which the first respondent had not responded to a PIPA claim, in particular by confirming whether or not it was a proper respondent.
The orders sought today on an amended form of application require the second respondent to give written notice under section 27(1)(b) of the PIPA within 14 days of service of the order and to give over copies of documents of the kind mentioned in section 27(1)(a), if it has any, within 21 days of such service. Those orders are made pursuant to section 35.
Now, has notice been given of that amendment?
MR DIGNAN: Yes, your Honour. I refer to‑‑‑‑‑
HIS HONOUR: All right. Mr Dignan's affidavit establishes that notice of amendments being sought to the original application filed on the 4th November 2004 has gone to the first respondent's registered office.
The circumstances of expiry of the ordinary three year limitation period are clearly ones of urgency as Court of Appeal has confirmed in Gillam v. State of Queensland [2003] QCA 566.
I order as per initialled draft.