An applicant for extension of the limitation period under s 31(2)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) need only demonstrate something like a prima facie case — evidence which, if unopposed, would be sufficient to prove the case — and is not required to show on the probabilities that the action would likely succeed. Where the causal connection between a medical procedure and injury depends on expert opinion, the fact of that connection is not within the applicant's means of knowledge until the steady preponderance of opinion or belief of a reasonable person in the applicant's position would be that the connection exists; conflicting medical opinions may delay that point. Evidence that a pharmaceutical product had been banned in another country decades before its use, combined with evidence of its identification as causally related to injury, may be sufficient to establish a prima facie case of inadequate warning by the distributor.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 47 later cases that cite this judgment.
10 of the 47 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.