McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd

[2017] QCA 259

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Amendment of originating processes and pleadings outside limitation period
3. › Amendments introducing new cause of action or particularising cause of action
4. › Whether amended statement of claim added new causes of action
5. › Whether 'cause of action' has different meaning under Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
6. › Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 10
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 375, 376(1), 376(4)
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Limitation of particular actions
3. › Simple contracts, quasi-contracts and torts
4. › Accrual of cause of action and when time begins to run
5. › Torts
6. › Whether additional consequential loss pleaded in amended statement of claim constituted new cause of action
7. › Whether causal link between tortious breach and consequential loss first pleaded in amended statement of claim
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Amendment
4. › Amendment after limitation period
5. › Distinction between new cause of action and further particulars of existing cause of action
6. › Whether amendments particularised claims already pleaded
7. › Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 16
8. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 375, 376(4)

Quick Take

The term 'cause of action' in UCPR r 376(4) bears the same meaning as under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and does not extend to encompass any new material facts pleaded to support the relief claimed. Amendments that plead additional consequential loss flowing from the same breach of duty do not constitute new causes of action requiring leave under r 376(4), even where the amendments substantially expand the factual detail of the causal chain. Once a tortious cause of action in negligence accrues upon the first suffering of damage, all subsequent loss attributable to the same cause is encompassed within that single cause of action. Harris v Raggatt should not be followed to the extent it advocated a broader meaning.