Background
The Applicant, Cheryl Ringelstein, brought an application for extension of time to commence proceedings pursuant to s31(2) of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) (LAA).1
The Applicant’s claim related to alleged negligent surgery at the Caboolture Hospital in June 2004 which resulted in complications requiring further surgical treatment.2
The Applicant first approached a law firm for advice in September 2008, but did not pursue a claim at that time as she was unable to afford the cost of an expert report.3 The Applicant was provided with written advice regarding the effect that delay would have on her prospects of succeeding in applying for extension of time.4
The Applicant approached another law firm in October 2010 but was advised that the firm was unable to assist her.5 The Applicant was again provided with written advice regarding the limitation period and applying for extension of time.6
In mid-2022, the Applicant met with representatives of Caboolture Hospital regarding her poor clinical outcome.7 She was offered a goodwill payment of $10,000 and received correspondence acknowledging her care had been below the expected standard.8
In June 2023, proceedings were commenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland, some 16 years after the limitation period had expired pursuant to s11 of the LAA.9
In October 2023, the Applicant obtained expert reports which opined there had been a “lack of due care” by the Caboolture Hospital and this had caused her to suffer harm.10
Decision – delivered on 17 April 2025
The Court denied the extension of time to bring the claim sought by the Applicant.
Although it was accepted by the parties that the expert evidence obtained in October 2023 constituted a material fact of a decisive nature within the meaning of s31 of the LAA,11 the critical issue in this case was whether the Applicant had taken all reasonable steps to find out that material fact.12
This required consideration of what could have reasonably been expected from the Applicant in her personal circumstances, with reference to her health, education, employment, family circumstances and lack of experience of the legal system.13
The Court found that the Applicant had failed to take all reasonable steps to obtain the relevant facts.14 This was informed by the fact that the Applicant had been aware since late 2008 that the limitation period had expired and that it was important that she act promptly to obtain necessary evidence to apply for an extension of time.15
The Court was critical that the Applicant had done nothing to “investigate her legal situation or seek any further assistance” for at least 12 years (from 2004 to 2022) and noted the Applicant was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for her “lengthy delay in pursuing this matter.”16
The issue of costs is yet to be determined by the Court.
Implications
Plaintiffs seeking to bring claims for medical negligence cannot rely on the fact that they have recently obtained supportive expert report as a ‘free pass’ to commence Court proceedings out of time.
Plaintiffs seeking to bring claims after the limitation period has expired must show they took all reasonable steps to investigate their potential legal entitlements and seek assistance, and any delay will need to be explained satisfactorily to the Court.
It is important to remember that this is a fact-specific test and what is reasonable for one Plaintiff may not be reasonable for another. For example, any Plaintiff with background in legal education or practice would likely have a very difficult time explaining a failure to commence Court proceedings within requisite timeframes.
In matters where a Plaintiff is seeking the consent of the Defendant to bring proceedings out of time, it is likely appropriate to require the Plaintiff to produce affidavit material which sets out the steps they took to investigate the matter and seek assistance. It is critical to understand what the Plaintiff was aware of and when, and why there was a delay in commencing Court proceedings.
If the Plaintiff delayed in investigating their entitlements and seeking assistance without good reason, this may be a ‘silver bullet’ to defeat the action.
This article was written by Audrey Lacey, Partner and Georgia Atcheson, Associate.
1 Ringelstein v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] QSC 75.
2 Ibid [1].
3 Ibid [5].
4 Ibid [26]-[27].
5 Ibid [5].
6 Ibid [30].
7 Ibid [5], [11].
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid [5].
10 Ibid [16].
11 Ibid [13].
12 Ibid [14].
13 Ibid [21]-[23].
14 Ibid [44].
15 Ibid [43].
16 Ibid [43]-[44].
