Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60 involved a claim by a paramedic for compensation arising from mental health injuries she suffered at an accident on 2 September 2018.  At [2]-[6] Bradley JA said:

The appellant was a paramedic with the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS).  On 2 September 2018, she attended the scene of a motor vehicle accident at Mount Tamborine.  A single vehicle was involved.  The first respondent was the driver.  The second respondent (the CTP insurer) was the insurer, covering the driver’s liability for personal injury caused by, through or in connection with the use of the vehicle.

The appellant remained at the scene of the accident for about an hour with an injured passenger.  The passenger’s arm had been almost completely amputated in the accident.  The appellant retrieved the passenger’s humerus bone from where it was lodged in a tree several metres from the vehicle.

Over September and October 2018, the appellant’s ability to cope with her work as a paramedic deteriorated.  It never improved.  Within 12 months of the accident, she had ceased full-time work.  After December 2020, she could not work at all.  In January 2021, she had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) caused by her exposure to trauma, including the accident.

In Queensland, a person may not bring an action claiming damages that include personal injury after the expiration of three years from the date the cause of action arose. The appellant did not bring an action claiming such damages from the driver and the CTP insurer in respect of the accident (an MVA claim) before that period (the limitation period) had expired.

On 21 August 2024, the appellant filed an originating application seeking an order extending the limitation period to 9 November 2024. It was heard before the learned primary judge on 4 October 2024.  On 6 November 2024, his Honour dismissed the application.

Ms Grapes appealed to the Court of Appeal.   

The limitation period can be extended by year from the date when relevant facts come to the knowledge of the applicant where they can show she took all reasonable steps to find the necessary information.  In this case the relevant information was the identity of the driver and the relevant CTP insurer.     

At [18]-[19] Bradley JA said:

It appeared to be common ground between the parties that the appellant could not reasonably have been expected to do anything more than consult a solicitor, keep in touch with the solicitor, and act according to the solicitor’s advice given from time to time.  Nor was there dispute that, if the appellant needed the help of a solicitor to find out the identities, then those facts would not have been within her means of knowledge until the time it would reasonably take for a solicitor to make the necessary inquiries had elapsed.

The real issue between the parties was quite narrow: namely, whether, before 8 November 2023, the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer.

The appellant argued that it was her state of health that delayed her instructing solicitors but the court was not persuaded given the steps she had taken since 2021 with respect to her workers compensation claim including engaging solicitors to act in that matter.  At [61]-[64] Bradley JA said:

The appellant’s reply submission that she had “retained solicitors and followed them up once psychologically well enough” is unsupported by evidence …

The appellant gave no direct explanation for her failure to instruct a solicitor at any earlier time to find out these key pieces of missing information for her MVA claim.  The submission that she was unable to do so, due to the state of her health during the relevant period, has some force.  It does not withstand consideration of the appellant’s other conduct over the period from 30 May 2022 to October 2023…

In her circumstances, by June 2022, and certainly by April 2023, the appellant could reasonably have retained a solicitor to identify the driver and CTP insurer, notwithstanding the state of her health.  Her failure to do so, had the consequence that she was unable to show that the identities were facts not within her means of knowledge before November 2023.

Bradley JA (with whom Bond JA and Ryan J agreed) dismissed the appeal and the claim remained statute barred.  

Lesson learned

Strict time limits apply to all civil claims.  Potential applicants need to be mindful of these limits.  Whilst the time can be extended it is only possible if the applicant has acted reasonably in their own interests.  The personal circumstances of the applicant are relevant (see [40]) so the fact that Ms Grapes was suffering injuries, in this case PTSD, that may have explained the delay, her conduct in managing her workers compensation case including instructing solicitors who gave her advice about a potential claim against the driver (see [49]) meant that, had she taken reasonable steps, the identify of the driver and the CTP insurer would have been found before 8 November 2023. 

If the applicant ‘could reasonably have retained a solicitor to identify the driver and CTP insurer’ by ‘June 2022, and certainly by April 2023’ then the latest the limitation period could be extended to was April 2024.   She commenced her action in August 2024, beyond the period of possible extension and her claim remained barred.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.