The Statutory Limitation Period for Personal Injuries Is Three Years, but When Is It Really Too Late?

Ringelstein v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] QCA 188.
November 3 2025

By David Slatyer, Partner and Tyra Zacka, Paralegal

Not 19 years according to the Queensland Court of Appeal, which overturned a decision of the Supreme Court that earlier dismissed the applicant’s request for an extension of the limitation period.

The appellant, Cheryl Ann Ringelstein, underwent surgery at the Caboolture Hospital in June 2004. This led to serious complications and ongoing health issues. The statutory limitation period for personal injury claims is 3 years, which in this case would be approximately June 2007.

However, under section 31(2) Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (‘LAA’), the Court may utilise their discretion to extend time if a ‘material fact of decisive character’ was not within the applicant’s knowledge or means of knowledge until after the limitation period expired.

The appellant commenced proceedings on 23 June 2023 and had to show that a material fact of a decisive nature was not within her means of knowledge until after June 2022; she relied on expert reports (Dr Reid) obtained in October 2023 for that purpose.

The central issue before the primary judge was whether the appellant had “taken all reasonable steps” to discover the expert evidence of Dr Reid before 23 June 2022.

The Queensland Supreme Court dismissed the appellant’s application to extend the limitation period. It found that despite considering the appellant’s personal circumstances, there was no satisfactory explanation for the lengthy delay in pursuing the matter. The primary judge also refused the application on the basis that the appellant had not “taken all reasonable steps” to discover the expert evidence supporting her case, further supporting the decision that an extension of time was not warranted.

Appeal Decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously held the primary judge erred in concluding the appellant had failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the expert evidence that supported a case. The Court clarified that although the standard of reasonable steps is objective, its application must be assessed from the applicant’s personal standpoint, as affirmed in NF v State of Queensland [2005] QCA 110 and Gillespie v Swift Australia Pty Ltd [2009] QCA 316.

Relevant Considerations

The Court of Appeal gave detailed consideration to the factual history which extended over many years, which is difficult to summarise, but several factors in their decision were as follows:

  • Financial hardship: the appellant and her husband were in a consistently poor financial position and unable to afford legal fees or the cost of an expert report.
  • Limited education and legal experience: the appellant had no prior exposure to the legal system and had only completed schooling to year 10.
  • Recurring medical and associated issues: the appellant suffered from chronic pain, depression and underwent multiple surgeries, which significantly impacted her capacity to act.
  • Attempts to seek legal advice: the appellant approached two law firms in 2008 and 2010 but was unable to proceed due to cost.
  • Explanation for delay: the Court accepted the appellant’s affidavit evidence that she felt defeated given she was twice unable to enlist the help of solicitors except on terms that she pay a sum she could never have paid.

Ultimately, the Court said that a demoralised person in physical and mental distress, with no available evidence of negligence by the hospital and inability to secure legal assistance, the appellant could not be said to have acted unreasonably by not trying to pursue further legal avenues.

Outcome

The Court found that, in light of the appellant’s circumstances, the appellant had taken all reasonable steps to discover the material fact (expert evidence). The appeal was allowed, the earlier decision was reversed and the limitation period was extended to 23 June 2023. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant’s costs.

Key Takeaways

This case reinforces that the test under s 30(1)(c) LAA, being objectively reasonable, must be applied contextually, considering the applicant’s personal and financial circumstances.