In this episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Court of Appeal’s decision in Ringelstein v Metro North Hospital and Health Service [2025] QCA 188, which demonstrates how extending time limit for medical negligence claim proceedings can succeed when courts properly assess what reasonable steps means from the applicant’s actual circumstances. The case involved Miss Ringelstein, who suffered devastating injuries from surgery performed negligently at Caboolture Hospital in June 2004, and whose initial application for an extension was denied at first instance (covered in Episode 17, Season 2) but successfully overturned on appeal after the Court of Appeal found the primary judge failed to properly consider her financial hardship, medical difficulties, and repeated unsuccessful attempts to obtain legal help.
The Court of Appeal’s compassionate analysis reveals the proper approach to extending time limit for medical negligence claim applications under section 31 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). The key legal principle established is that “reasonable steps is an objective question, but the taking or failure to take those steps is assessed subjectively from the position of the applicant”—meaning courts must consider what can reasonably be expected from the actual person in the applicant’s circumstances. The Court examined four distinct time periods from 2004 to 2023, finding that Miss Ringelstein’s steps were reasonable throughout: initially she had no indication of wrongdoing; when she consulted lawyers in 2008 and 2010 she was told her prospects were poor and costs would be $8,000-$10,000 which she couldn’t afford; during the long middle period she was consumed by devastating health issues while living week-to-week with four children and a mortgage, having been told by lawyers that pursuing the claim was not worthwhile; and finally in 2022 when she learned of similar cases at Caboolture Hospital, she immediately approached the hospital and received an admission of wrongdoing, leading to proceedings within 12 months. Critically, the Court rejected Metro North’s argument that House v The King principles applied, clarifying that whether factual elements of section 31 are satisfied is not a discretionary question—discretion only arises after those factual matters are determined.
Listen for Michelle Wright’s comprehensive analysis of this important decision on extending time limit for medical negligence claim applications and the critical distinction between objective and subjective assessment. If you’re suffering from medical negligence that occurred years ago and believe you’ve missed the time limit, the experienced team at accident legal understands how to build compelling extension applications based on your actual circumstances. As Queensland’s trusted personal injury lawyers, we know that financial hardship, ongoing medical difficulties, and unsuccessful attempts to obtain legal help can all support extending time limit for medical negligence claim proceedings when properly presented. Contact us for a free consultation on (07) 3740 0200—we’ll assess your circumstances and fight for your right to pursue justice even when years have passed since the negligent treatment.
