Case Summary: Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60

By Honest Grace Legal | Personal Injury & Civil Procedure | Oct 2025

This case summary reviews Grapes v AAI Limited [2025] QCA 60, a Queensland Court of Appeal decision concerning limitation periods, material facts of a decisive character, means of knowledge, reasonable steps, PTSD, motor vehicle accident claims, and applications to extend time under s 31(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).

Case Subject

QCA declines extension of limitation period for paramedic’s MVArelated PTSD claim

Background: What Happened in Grapes v AAI Limited

Ms Sonia Laura Grapes, a QAS paramedic, attended a singlevehicle accident at Mount Tamborine on 2 September 2018, treating a passenger with catastrophic arm injuries. In the aftermath, her functioning deteriorated; she ceased fulltime work within 12 months, stopped work altogether after December 2020, and was diagnosed with PTSD in January 2021.

Limitation position: Personal injury actions are generally barred three years after the cause of action arises. Ms Grapes did not commence an action for damages before the subject limitation period had expired.

Application below: On 21 August 2024, she applied to extend time under s 31(2) to 9 November 2024. The primary judge dismissing the application. This decision was appealed.

Identification timeline (not contested): The appellant was unable to ascertain the driver’s identity until 15 September 2023 and the vehicle registration until 6 November 2023. ACITEC search conducted on 8 November 2023 thereafter revealed the relevant CTP insurer.

Key Legal Issues in the Appeal

• Material fact & means of knowledge: Were the identities of the driver and CTP insurer “material facts of a decisive character” that were not within Ms Grapes’ means of knowledgeuntil within one year before the extension application? (Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), ss 30–31).
  
  

• Reasonable steps: Did she take all reasonable steps to ascertain those identities before November 2023 (including by instructing solicitors), given her circumstances and PTSD?
  
  

• Discretion: If the s 31(2)(a) threshold were met, should the Court exercise its discretion to extend time?

What the Court of Appeal Decided

Orders (2 May 2025):

• Appeal dismissed.
• Appellant to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.

Key Findings on Limitation, Means of Knowledge and Reasonable Steps

• The identities of the driver and CTP insurer were material facts of a decisive character, and it was common ground they were unknown until late 2023; the contest was whether they were within the appellant’s means of knowledge earlier had she taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the driver and the CTP insurer.
  
  

• The “reasonable steps” inquiry is subjective to the applicant’s circumstances (PTSD included) but can include engaging solicitors; if solicitor assistance is needed, means of knowledge is assessed by the time reasonably required for a solicitor to obtain the information. NF v State of Queensland applied.
  
  

• A reasonable step here was to instruct solicitors to obtain identifying information (including via mechanisms such as UCPR r 208C or targeted information requests).
  
  

• On the evidence, had a solicitor been engaged by mid2021, the identities could likely have been obtained by early 2022 (Ms Denning later obtained them in about eight months).
  
  

• Because the threshold in s 31(2)(a) was not met (the facts were within her means of knowledge earlier, had reasonable steps been taken), the discretion to extend did not arise.
  
  

• The ground alleging procedural unfairness failed; the finding about engaging solicitors was open on the evidence, and any suggested unfairness was cured on appeal.

Outcome of the Appeal

• The Court accepted that, given PTSD, it was beyond Ms Grapes’ capacity to personally discover the driver/insurer. However, the reasonable step in her circumstances was to engage solicitors to do so.  

• The timeline of her conduct showed capacity to pursue legal processes: she initiated and actively managed a WorkCover claim from January 2021, sought reviews, obtained medical assessments, and consulted two sets of solicitors in May-June 2022 and again in February-March 2023. This demonstrated she could reasonably have retained solicitors to identify the driver/insurer by June 2022, and certainly by April 2023.  

• Mechanisms existed by which solicitors could obtain the missing identity information (e.g., UCPR r 208C, targeted disclosure/RTI and police records). Indeed, once engaged, Ms Denning secured the driver’s name (15 Sept 2023), vehicle registration (6 Nov 2023), and the CTP insurer via search (8 Nov 2023).  

• Accordingly, the facts were within her means of knowledge earlier than November 2023 had all reasonable steps been taken; s 31(2)(a) was not satisfied. The appeal from the refusal to extend time therefore failed.  

Why This Personal Injury and Civil Procedure Case Matters

• Practical threshold for extensions: Even where defendants claim no prejudice, applicants must strictly satisfy s 31(2)(a). The Court will focus on whether the missing facts (here, identities of driver/insurer) were obtainable earlier by taking reasonable steps suitable to the applicant’s circumstances.  

• Engaging solicitors can be decisive: For injured first responders and others with psychological injury, the Court recognises limitations but may still expect the engagement of solicitors as a reasonable step, measured subjectively and by what solicitors can do within a reasonable time (including preaction discovery and information requests).  

• Guidance for practice: Where an MVArelated injury is contemplated and identities are unknown, prompt instruction of solicitors to pursue identification (police records, registration searches, and UCPR tools) should occur well before limitation expiry to preserve s 31 options.  

Source

https://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2025/QCA25-060.pdf