• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The underlying appeal concerned the operation of two limitation provisions in the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). As summarised at [2], the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland had concluded that s 26(1) did not extend or exclude the operation of s 10(1), with the result that a defendant could plead the shorter limitation period under s 10(1) where the periods overlapped. The High Court proceeding ended with orders made on 4 September 2019: the appeal was dismissed and Brisbane City Council was ordered to pay Amos's costs ([3]). The cited High Court judgment is Brisbane City Council v Amos (2019) 266 CLR 593.

The 2024 application arose because no document had been filed and no step taken in the proceeding after the 2019 judgment and orders ([4]). Amos sought leave to file a bill of costs. He prepared the application and supporting affidavit on 22 April 2024, and they were filed with the Registry on 24 June 2024 ([7]). He served sealed copies of the relevant materials on the Council on 8 July 2024 ([9]). The Council did not oppose the application ([10]).

Amos's evidence explained the delay. He was 83 and described health and mobility issues that had frustrated his ability to conduct his affairs, including these proceedings. He said that he had taken steps in early 2020 to arrange for the bill to be prepared, but limited contact with his solicitor during the COVID-19 pandemic caused delay. He also said that contracting pneumonia in 2023 delayed preparation further ([11]). In addition, he and his solicitor had prioritised the bill of costs for the Court of Appeal proceedings before preparing the bill for the High Court proceedings ([12]).

Steward J granted the application. The reasons record that the Council did not oppose it and had suffered no prejudice from the delay ([13]). The order was specifically for leave to file the bill of costs dated 22 April 2024 ([14]). The judgment does not determine the amount of costs, assess the bill, or decide a dispute about recoverability of any particular item.

Why the court decided this way

The immediate procedural basis was r 4.03.02 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). As quoted at [5], that rule provides that if three years or more have elapsed since any party took a step in a proceeding, no further step may be taken without leave of the Court or a Justice. Since no document had been filed and no step taken after the High Court's 4 September 2019 judgment and orders ([4]), Amos needed leave for the proposed filing.

The decision then turns on the circumstances placed before Steward J. The reasons identify the explanations Amos gave for the delay: his age, health and mobility difficulties, difficulty maintaining contact with his solicitor during the pandemic, pneumonia in 2023, and the prioritisation of costs work in the Court of Appeal proceedings ([11]-[12]). The judgment does not test those explanations against conflicting evidence, because no opposition by the Council is recorded. It also expressly states that the Council had suffered no prejudice by the delay ([13]).

The Court's conclusion is brief: “It is appropriate that leave be granted to file the bill of costs” ([13]). The operative direction follows at [14]. The reasons therefore support a cautious, case-specific account: the rule required leave, Amos provided explanations for delay, the application was unopposed, and the Council had suffered no prejudice. The text does not announce a comprehensive legal test for leave, assign formal weights to those matters, or say that any one of them would independently be sufficient.

For practitioners, that distinction matters. The decision confirms what happened on the application before Steward J, but its short reasoning does not establish a general formula for every application under r 4.03.02. In particular, it does not specify what evidence is always required, how prejudice should be assessed in other cases, or how a contested application should be resolved. Those questions cannot be answered from this judgment alone.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment states the relevant procedural rule but does not describe a change in the law. Before this decision, r 4.03.02, as set out at [5], already required leave where three years or more had elapsed since a party last took a step in a proceeding. The judgment applies that rule to Amos's request. It does not amend or reinterpret the rule in express terms.

The earlier substantive litigation is mentioned only to identify the proceeding from which the costs application arose. At [2], Steward J summarises the Queensland Court of Appeal's conclusion concerning ss 10(1) and 26(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). At [3], the judgment records the High Court's 2019 dismissal of the Council's appeal and costs order. The 2024 decision does not reconsider that limitation question, explain the reasoning in the 2019 judgment, or state any new principle about limitation periods.

Accordingly, the “after” position shown by this source is narrow: in this proceeding, leave was granted for Amos to file the specified bill of costs. The order did not itself determine the contents, amount, assessment or payment of the bill. Nor does the text say that the three-year requirement was waived. Rather, it records that leave was required and granted.

This judgment is therefore best understood as a procedural application of the stated rule, rather than a decision that changes substantive law. Any broader account of the rule's operation would require other legal sources, which are not included in this judgment.

Key passages with plain-English translation

At [5], the judgment states the rule: “where 3 years or more have elapsed since any party has taken any step in a proceeding, no step shall be taken in the proceeding without the leave of the Court or a Justice.” In plain English, a party cannot take a further step in a proceeding that has been inactive for at least three years unless the Court or a Justice gives permission. Here, the proposed step was filing the bill of costs.

At [4], Steward J records that “No document has been filed or any step taken in the proceedings” since the 2019 judgment and orders. This identifies the inactivity relevant to the rule. The text does not discuss whether some unrecorded event might count as a step; it states that none had been taken.

At [11], the reasons record Amos's evidence about age, health and mobility, limited contact with his solicitor during the COVID-19 pandemic, and pneumonia in 2023. The plain-English significance is that the application did not leave the delay unexplained. These are Amos's stated circumstances as recorded by the judge, rather than findings about a general category of acceptable explanation.

At [12], the judgment adds that Amos and his solicitor prioritised preparing the Court of Appeal costs bill before the High Court costs bill. That passage supplies a further explanation for the timing. The judgment does not criticise that sequence or state a general rule about prioritising costs work.

At [13], the Court says the Council did not oppose the application and “Nor has the Council suffered any prejudice by the delay.” It then concludes that leave is appropriate. In ordinary language, the absence of opposition and prejudice formed part of the stated basis for granting permission. The reasons do not say that absence of prejudice alone would always justify leave.

Finally, [14] gives the operative order: the application dated 22 April 2024 “be granted.” This is the legal result of the application. It is not an order assessing or fixing the costs themselves.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The procedural issue addressed arises where a party seeks to take a step in a High Court proceeding after three years or more have elapsed since any party took a step. The rule quoted at [5] makes leave necessary in that situation. In this matter, the proposed step was filing a bill of costs after a period of inactivity beginning after the 4 September 2019 judgment and orders ([3]-[4]).

The circumstances that accompanied the application were specific: an unopposed request, explanations involving health and mobility, pandemic-related limits on contact with a solicitor, pneumonia, and the sequencing of costs preparation; the Council had suffered no prejudice ([10]-[13]). Those facts explain the outcome in this case, but the judgment does not say that they are prerequisites or that their presence automatically warrants leave.

The decision may be relevant as an example of a late procedural step being permitted where the application was unopposed and the Court recorded no prejudice. It should not be treated, on this text alone, as resolving a contested application, an application involving demonstrated prejudice, or a request to take a different kind of step. It also does not address whether a party may recover particular costs or how a bill should be assessed.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no references to decisions after 10 September 2024 and no account of how later courts have treated this ruling. It would therefore be unsupported to say that later courts have followed, applied, distinguished or otherwise treated Brisbane City Council v Edward Amos [2024] HCASJ 35.

The judgment itself refers to two earlier decisions. At [2], it cites Amos v Brisbane City Council [2018] QCA 11 for the background limitation issue. At [3], it cites Brisbane City Council v Amos (2019) 266 CLR 593 for the High Court appeal and costs order. Those references explain the procedural history; the 2024 judgment does not analyse those cases as authorities on the leave application.

For research purposes, the available text supports only a limited proposition: Steward J granted leave under the stated rule on the facts and circumstances recorded in this application. Any claim about subsequent judicial treatment would require material beyond the judgment supplied here.

Still-open questions

The short reasons leave several matters unanswered. First, the judgment states the three-year leave requirement but does not explain the method for deciding whether leave should be granted. It does not set out a multi-factor test or identify a threshold standard beyond its conclusion that leave was appropriate in this case ([5], [13]).

Second, it does not explain how the Court would assess a contested application. The Council did not oppose Amos's request ([10]). The reasons therefore do not show how competing evidence, objections to the explanation for delay, or claims of prejudice would have been addressed.

Third, the judgment records no prejudice to the Council, but does not define prejudice or discuss the kinds of consequences that might matter in another case ([13]). It likewise does not state whether the absence of prejudice is necessary, sufficient, or simply one relevant consideration.

Fourth, it does not decide the bill of costs itself. The order grants leave to file the bill dated 22 April 2024 ([14]). It says nothing about the bill's amount, the proper assessment of items, any objection to costs, or the date by which any later costs process must be completed.

Finally, the judgment does not revisit the substantive limitation issue summarised at [2], nor does it explain the reasoning in the 2019 appeal. Its focus is confined to the procedural request arising after the costs order. These limits are important when using the decision: its text records a particular leave order and concise reasons, not a comprehensive treatment of costs procedure or limitation law.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.