Case Summary: Grapes v AAI Limited [2024] QSC 267

Keywords: limitation of actions, PTSD, personal injury, Queensland Supreme Court, CTP claim, paramedic, motor vehicle accident, time extension, Suncorp, means of knowledge, permanent psychological injury

By Honest Grace Legal | Motor Vehicle Injury Law | May 2025

Subject

PTSD Claim from Paramedic Denied Extension - Time Limits Upheld in CTP Case  

What Happened

Sonia Grapes, a Queensland paramedic, sought court permission to file a damages claim well after the usual limitation period had expired. Her claim related to psychological injuries - specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) - arising from a traumatic motor vehicle accident she attended in September 2018. 

Although she stopped working permanently in January 2021 and was diagnosed with PTSD by multiple doctors, she argued that she only became aware of the full extent and work-related cause of her injury in December 2022. Furthermore, she claimed not to have identified the driver (third respondent) or the compulsory third party (CTP) insurer (first respondent, AAI Limited trading as Suncorp Insurance) until November 2023. 

She applied to extend the time limits under Queensland’s Limitation of Actions Act 1974 and the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 to proceed with a personal injury claim. 

Key Legal Issues

• Did Ms Grapes lack knowledge of material facts necessary to bring a claim until recently? 

• Were these facts “material” and “decisive” under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)? 

• Did she take all reasonable steps to discover these facts in time? 

• Was an extension of the limitation period justified under s 31(2) of the Act? 

What the Court Decided

The Supreme Court of Queensland (Copley J) dismissed the application. The judge found that Ms Grapes had sufficient knowledge of the essential facts (injury, cause, and impact) by early 2021 and should have acted earlier to pursue legal action. She also could have identified the parties responsible for the accident well before 2023 by instructing solicitors sooner. 

Therefore, she failed to meet the strict statutory requirements for extending the limitation period. 

Key Findings

• Material Facts: The applicant’s injury, its cause, and the identity of the defendants were material. However:
• She knew or could have reasonably discovered by April 2021 that the accident caused her PTSD.
• She believed her condition was permanent and disabling by March 2021.
• Reasonable Steps: The court emphasized that even amid psychological struggles, Ms Grapes had insight and legal awareness in 2021 (e.g., engaging with WorkCover and lawyers).
• Decisive Character: While new medical opinions (e.g., from Dr Mungomery) may have confirmed her condition, they were not essential triggers for legal action since she already had enough information to act. 

Outcome

The application to extend the limitation period was refused. Ms Grapes cannot pursue her personal injury claim against the CTP insurer, the driver, or the State of Queensland. The court will hear further submissions on legal costs.

Why This Case Matters

This decision reinforces the high threshold applicants must meet when seeking to extend limitation periods in personal injury matters. It highlights the importance of: 

• Acting promptly upon diagnosis or awareness of injury. 

• Consulting legal professionals early - even during ongoing health challenges. 

• The court’s reluctance to extend limitation periods when there’s evidence the claimant had prior awareness or the means to gain it. 

For legal practitioners and claimants alike, this case is a critical reminder: psychological conditions, while complex, don’t automatically justify delayed claims without clear and timely evidence of incapacity or discovery. 

Source

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2024/QSC24-267.pdf