Hankin v Riseley
[2006] QDC 254
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
- Hankin v Riseley[2006] QDC 254
- Add to List
Hankin v Riseley[2006] QDC 254
Hankin v Riseley[2006] QDC 254
[2006] QDC 254
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1911 of 2006
ROBYN LYNETTE HANKIN | Applicant |
and | |
ANN LOUISE RISELEY trading as RISELEY PRESTIGE REALTY BN 67 22593 | First Respondent |
and
JAMES FINUCAN Second Respondent
and
DAVINA POLETTO Third Respondent
and
MAURIE SEWELL trading as Fourth Respondent
GOLD COAST CARPETS BN 41 01868
BRISBANE
DATE 10/07/2006
ORDER
CATCHWORDS: | Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 s 43 - application for leave to start a proceeding on eve of expiration of 3 years limitation period. |
HIS HONOUR: This is an application under Section 43 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 which is urgent, given the limitation period's imminent ending.
The foreshadowed proceeding concerns damages arising out of an incident that happened on the 13th of July 2003 in relation to the first respondent's real estate office. The second and third respondents are the owners of the relevant building and the fourth respondent was the installer of a carpet which is said to have been in a dangerous condition.
The applicant was not dilatory in engaging solicitors, having first done so on the 22nd of October 2003. There has been a history of disappointments in respect of continuity of legal representation which is so confusing that, even if there were any point in allocating blame, it would a very difficult task; and the circumstances are ones in which the applicant oughtn't to suffer.
It is almost a practice now to allowing these applications on the eve of limitation periods ending to preserve the traditional rights of injured people. The taking of an understanding attitude is in line with the Court of Appeal's decision in Gillam v. State of Queensland [2004] 2 Queensland Reports 251 and now the High Court's decision in Davison v. Queensland, Yorrie v. State of Queensland and Orr v. State of Queensland [2006] HCA 21.
As is customary, the proceeding leave to institute which is given will be stayed pending compliance with the usual pre- litigations steps mandated by the Act. The order includes an abridgment of time to permit the application to be heard against the 4th respondent, the carpet installer, or repairer, as clarified by Mr Howe.
...
HIS HONOUR: The fourth respondent, if so minded, may approach the Court to revisit the order. The circumstances in relation to him are perhaps not as difficult as those in respect of the second and third respondent owners who have not been served, given that they are overseas. By contrast the first respondent has provided a document indicating her consent to the orders sought, which is Exhibit 1. The material however indicates that all respondents would be well aware of the incident and of the applicant's intended claim.
Order as per paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the originating application filed on the 5th of July 2006.