Di Bella v Morello [2012] QDC 129

1-1 [2012] QDC 129 DISTRICT COURT CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE ROBIN QC No 1406 of 2012 ANTHONY DI BELLA Applicant and VITO MORELLO Respondent BRISBANE ..DATE 20/04/2012 ORDER CATCHWORDS Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002, s 36(5), s 40(9), s 59(2) Compulsory conference and mandatory final offers dispensed with in circumstances of proposed defendant's impecuniosity - two month extension of limitation period for commencing claim -- 1 of 3 -- 1-2 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 HIS HONOUR: The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft. It grants relief to the applicant under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 by way of dispensing with the requirement for a compulsory conference under section 36(5) and with the exchange of mandatory final offers under section 40(9). In that regard the relief corresponds to that granted in the previous matter in the Court's list today of Benussi v Morello, the defendant is the same person. Unlike Mr Benussi, Mr Di Bella's injuries have stabilised, all that's sought and granted under section 59(2) is leave to commence proceedings within 60 days of the date of the order which amounts to extension of the limitation period which would otherwise expire in a few days by two months. The applicant suffered burns when a catastrophe occurred at a bonfire night on Anzac Day 2009 at the respondent's residence. There was an explosion which led to a number of those attending being badly burnt. The defendant formerly had solicitors but they are no longer acting. He appears to have limited or no financial resources. That is the position he advised to the applicant's solicitors in his email of 12th of February 2012 which threatens that he'll file for bankruptcy as soon there are judgments against him. He assert an inability to attend the compulsory conference -- 2 of 3 -- 1-3 ORDER 1 10 20 30 40 50 60 which had been called on the 22nd of February 2012. In the unusual circumstances I think the Court can draw some comfort from similar communications in the other matter. Those served to demonstrate Mr Morello's agreement in his difficult circumstances with what was proposed. The present applicant doesn't have that comfort (of “agreement” being indicated) and simply relies on the merits of its application and Mr Morello's failure to resist it notwithstanding service. Those are the reasons for the Court making the order requested. ----- -- 3 of 3 --