Background
This interlocutory decision arises from a representative proceeding (class action) in which the plaintiff, SLB Investments Queensland Pty Ltd (in liquidation), and a class of Queensland motorists claim that the State of Queensland and Brisbane City Council set User Administration Charges (UAC) and Administration Charges (AC) on Queensland toll roads in excess of the statutory maximums permitted by the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld). The UAC applied when a driver paid a toll other than in cash or via the E-toll system, and the AC was levied when a toll and UAC went unpaid. Both charges were required by the Act to be no more than the reasonable cost of the relevant administrative function. The plaintiff contends the expert evidence demonstrates that the amounts set by the Ministers and the Council, and collected by Queensland Motorways Management Pty Ltd, exceeded those statutory caps throughout the period from 1 July 2009 onwards.
A separate representative plaintiff, Adeva Home Solutions Pty Ltd, had originally commenced the proceedings, but SLB Investments Queensland Pty Ltd was substituted as representative plaintiff by order of the court in August 2023. The plaintiff then applied for leave to make extensive further amendments to the Amended Claim and Amended Statement of Claim across four categories: (1) joining the two Ministers who made the relevant statutory declarations — Craig Andrew Wallace and Mark Craig Bailey — as fourth and fifth defendants and pleading new causes of action against them and the State; (2) new restitution claims against Queensland Motorways and a new negligence claim against the Council; (3) consequential amendments to update the pleading for the substituted representative plaintiff; and (4) miscellaneous further particulars and corrections responding to complaints previously raised by the defendants.
The defendants took varying positions. Queensland Motorways neither consented to nor opposed the amendments. The Council opposed only the proposed negligence claim against it, arguing the pleading failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The State, on its own behalf and on behalf of the proposed minister-defendants, opposed the Category 1 amendments on multiple grounds, including that the new causes of action did not arise from the same or substantially the same facts and that the limitation period had expired.
The Court’s Holding
Williams J granted leave for the Category 3 amendments — those consequential on the substitution of SLB Investments Queensland Pty Ltd as representative plaintiff — finding the State’s opposition to be untenable. The substituted plaintiff had been a group member whose claims were subject to the limitation period suspension under s 103Z of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), and it was inevitable that the pleading would need to be updated to reflect the new plaintiff’s specific toll road usage and loss. Leave was granted for Category 3 amendments to the extent they related to the existing breach of statutory duty and restitution claims, with the fate of Category 3 amendments touching the new causes of action to follow the rulings on Categories 1 and 2.
Leave was also granted for the Category 4 amendments — the miscellaneous particulars and corrections — subject to one qualification. The court found that the plaintiff’s decision to particularise loss and damage only for the “sample” years of 2017 and 2022 (the years selected for disclosure and expert analysis) was understandable given that financial data for 2014–2017 had not been provided, but the court directed the plaintiff to reinstate the general particulars of loss and damage for all relevant years alongside the detailed sample-year particulars, to avoid future dispute about whether claims for other years had been abandoned.
The court delivered its substantive reasons on all issues — including the contested Category 1 joinder of the Ministers and the Category 2 negligence claim against the Council — and directed the parties to liaise on draft orders in light of those reasons. Agreed draft orders were to be provided by 26 June 2026, with disputed orders and brief submissions to follow by 9 July 2026 if agreement could not be reached. The matter was listed for review on 30 July 2026.
Key Takeaways
- A substituted representative plaintiff in a class action does not face a fresh limitation period problem where the original proceeding already suspended time for group members under s 103Z of the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld); consequential amendments to reflect the new plaintiff’s facts should be allowed.
- A plaintiff that particularises loss and damage only for “sample” years agreed upon for expert and disclosure purposes should not be taken to have abandoned claims for other years, but the court required the general particulars to be expressly reinstated to prevent future ambiguity.
- The court applied r 69 and r 376 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) in assessing whether out-of-time joinder of government ministers and new causes of action against them could be permitted where the new claims were said to arise from substantially the same facts as the existing pleaded claims.
- The proposed negligence claim against Brisbane City Council for pure economic loss raised contested questions about whether an established duty-of-care category applied or whether vulnerability as a salient feature could ground a novel duty — a threshold the Council argued was not met.
Why It Matters
This decision is significant for class action practitioners in Queensland because it clarifies that the statutory suspension of limitation periods for group members under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) protects a substituted representative plaintiff when updating pleadings to reflect their own facts. It also illustrates the court’s pragmatic approach to particularisation of loss in proceedings that have adopted a “sample year” methodology for expert evidence — requiring reinstatement of general particulars rather than treating their omission as a permanent narrowing of the claim.
More broadly, the proceeding raises important public law and tort questions about the accountability of government ministers who exercise statutory pricing powers under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld). The proposed joinder of the Ministers personally, alongside claims in negligence against the Council for pure economic loss suffered by toll road users, will test the boundaries of governmental liability in Queensland for regulatory and administrative decisions with direct financial consequences for the public.