Best v Rosamond

In *Best v Rosamond*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal concerning the discoverability of a personal injury for the purposes of limitation periods. The dispute centred on when a plaintiff "ought to know" that an injury is sufficiently serious to justify commencing legal action.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was the interpretation of the discoverability principle under the relevant limitation legislation, specifically concerning the point at which a plaintiff is deemed to have knowledge of the seriousness of their injury such that they ought to have brought a cause of action. This involved determining the correct test for when a plaintiff possesses the requisite knowledge to trigger the limitation period.

The Court affirmed that the test for discoverability is an objective one, focusing on what the plaintiff ought to have known, rather than what they actually knew. It was held that the plaintiff's knowledge of the injury's seriousness must be such that it warrants bringing an action. This requires more than merely knowing that an injury has occurred; it necessitates an understanding of the potential for significant harm or loss that would justify the commencement of proceedings. The Court applied established principles regarding the assessment of a plaintiff's knowledge in the context of personal injury claims, emphasising that the limitation period begins to run when the plaintiff has sufficient information to form a reasonable belief that their injury is serious enough to warrant legal action.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.