Bajramovic v Calubaquib

The case of *Bajramovic v Calubaquib* concerned an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The applicant sought to appeal orders made by the District Court which had dismissed his summons for leave to commence proceedings for damages arising from a motor accident. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided a sufficient explanation for the significant delay in commencing his claim.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant's second application for leave under section 109(1) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW) constituted an abuse of process. Secondly, the court had to consider whether the trial judge erred by failing to adequately assess whether the applicant had furnished a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in initiating proceedings.

In its reasoning, the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in dismissing the summons without a proper consideration of the explanation for the delay. The court acknowledged the principle that a party is generally bound by the conduct of their counsel at trial, but it also recognised that there are circumstances, such as inadvertence or incompetence, where the court may intervene. The court concluded that the applicant should have been afforded the opportunity to have the question of the adequacy of his explanation for the delay determined.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders of the District Court. The matter was remitted to the District Court for determination of whether the applicant had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application for leave and the appeal.