Further to my earlier post regarding Kovacic v Local Government WorkCare  QSC 256 McGill DCJ recently applied Henry J’s reasoning and required the limitation application to be made before the compulsory conference:
 As to the former point, this was dealt with directly and specifically by Henry J in the decision of Kovacic v Local Government WorkCare  QSC 256 on p 7, where his Honour identified the relevant prejudice which would be suffered for the purposes of the analogous provision of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996, which was in the same terms. I consider that I should follow that decision unless persuaded that it is clearly wrong, and I am not so persuaded. His Honour then expressed the view that it is desirable and appropriate that whether a s 31 extension be granted not await the commencement of the proceedings, but instead occur the near the outset of the pre-proceeding process (p 7), and that there is an obvious disadvantage in considering settlement in circumstances where a potentially determinative limitation point remains unresolved (p 5). Whatever the practicalities of the matter are, I must say that the logic of his Honour’s position seems to me to be unassailable, and, at least in principle, the resolution of the compulsory conference should be simplified by removing this particular issue from contention prior to the conference.
Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack