Andrew Dennis Walker v The Electrotechnology Industry Group Training Company Ltd and Ecowise Services (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 1)

The case before the court involved Andrew Dennis Walker, the plaintiff, suing The Electrotechnology Industry Group Training Company Ltd and Ecowise Services (Australia) Pty Ltd, the defendants. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained during his employment. The primary dispute was whether the court should grant an extension of time for the plaintiff to commence proceedings, under section 36 of the Limitation Act 1985, given that the statutory limitation period had expired. The plaintiff had commenced proceedings outside the limitation period, and the defendants argued that the court should not extend the time for the plaintiff to commence the action.

The court had to determine whether the exclusion in section 36(5) of the Limitation Act applied to this case and, if not, whether the criteria for considering an extension application had been met. The court needed to assess the plaintiff's conduct once he knew or ought to have known that the defendant's conduct might give rise to a claim for damages, the steps the plaintiff had taken to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice, and whether it was just and reasonable to grant the extension. The defendants argued that the plaintiff had not acted promptly and reasonably once he knew or ought to have known that he might have a claim for damages, and that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient evidence of seeking further medical advice between 2012 and 2015.

The court found that the exclusion in section 36(5) of the Limitation Act did not apply to this case. The court considered the evidence of the plaintiff's knowledge and actions once he knew or ought to have known that he might have a claim for damages, and concluded that the plaintiff had acted reasonably once he sought legal advice in early 2015. The court also found that the plaintiff had taken steps to obtain medical advice in 2012, and that the lack of further medical advice between 2012 and 2015 did not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had not acted reasonably. The court held that it was just and reasonable to grant the relief sought by the plaintiff, and ordered an extension of time for the plaintiff to commence proceedings.

The court ordered that the time for the plaintiff to commence proceedings be extended by a period of six months from the date of the order. The court also ordered that the defendants pay the plaintiff's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.