Guljas v Nixon
[2009] QDC 372
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
- Guljas v Nixon[2009] QDC 372
- Add to List
Guljas v Nixon[2009] QDC 372
Guljas v Nixon[2009] QDC 372
[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.