Legal Research
Cases
Blyth v Commonwealth

Blyth v Commonwealth

Case [2005] NSWSC 721 21 July 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Blyth v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] NSWSC 721

HEARING DATE(S): 10 February, 14-15 April 2005

JUDGMENT DATE :

21 July 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Studdert J

DECISION:
The notice of motion is dismissed; order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs.

CATCHWORDS:
Limitation of actions - claim for damages for personal injury - application for extension of limitation period - whether just and reasonable to extend time - the issue of prejudice.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Limitation Act

CASES CITED:
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Commonwealth of Australia v Diston [2003] NSWCA 51
CRA Limited v Martignago (1995) 39 NSWLR 13
Dedousis v The Water Board (1994) 181 CLR 171
Drayton Coal Pty Limited v Drain (unreported, NSWCA, 22 August 1995)
Groves v The Commonwealth (1981-82) 150 CLR 113
Harris v Commercial Minerals Limited (1996) 186 CLR 1
Holt v Wynter (2000) 49 NSWLR 128
McLean v Sydney Water Corporation [2001] NSWCA 122
Parker v The Commonwealth of Australia (1964) 112 CLR 295
Smith v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] NSWSC 873
Sydney City Council v Zegarac (1998) 43 NSWLR 195
F.J. Walker Limited v Webber (unreported, NSWCA, 16 November 1989)

PARTIES:
Lester Kevin Blyth (Plaintiff)
The Commonwealth of Australia (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20247/00

COUNSEL:
M.J. Joseph SC/K. Sant (Plaintiff)
M. Dicker/I. McLachlan (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
James Taylor & Co. (Plaintiff)
Australian Government Solicitor (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Thursday 21 July 2005

20247/00 LESTER KEVIN BLYTH v THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Lester Kevin Blyth, moves the Court for an order pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act, seeking an extension of time for pursuing a claim that arises out of the collision between the “Melbourne” and the “Voyager”. The application was expressed in the alternative as being for an order under s 58 and, further, for an order pursuant to s 60C of the Limitation Act. However, ultimately the application was pursued in reliance upon ss 60G and 60I of the Limitation Act.

2 These sections are to be found in Pt 3 Div 3(3) of the statute. The sub-division provides a procedure for the discretionary relief of the limitation period where the plaintiff “was unaware of the fact, nature, extent or cause of the injury, disease or impairment at the relevant time”: s 60F. Section 60F provides that the procedure is available for causes of action accruing on or after 1 September 1990 and also, by the operation of Sch 5, for causes of action that accrued before that date.

3 Section 60G provides the Court with a discretion to order that the limitation period for the cause of action be extended if it is determined that it is “just and reasonable” to do so.

4 Section 60G has to be read in conjunction with s 60I(1), which is in these terms:

“(1) A court may not make an order under section…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blyth v Commonwealth

Details

AGLC: Blyth v Commonwealth [2005] NSWSC 721
Case: [2005] NSWSC 721
Decision Date: 21 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blyth versus the Commonwealth involved the plaintiff seeking damages for personal injury sustained during her employment with the Commonwealth Bank. The dispute centred on the Commonwealth's application to extend the limitation period within which the plaintiff could bring her claim. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court was tasked with determining whether it was just and reasonable to grant an extension of the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim. A key issue was whether the plaintiff had suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay in bringing the claim. The court had to consider the balance of the equities in determining whether to grant the extension, including the plaintiff's reasons for the delay and the potential for prejudice to the Commonwealth if the extension was granted.

In its decision, the court held that it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period. The court found that the plaintiff had not suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay and that the balance of the equities favoured granting the extension. The court took into account the fact that the plaintiff had acted promptly in bringing the claim once she became aware of her injury and that there was no evidence of any prejudice to the Commonwealth. The court held that the plaintiff's reasons for the delay were valid and that the extension of the limitation period was in the interests of justice.

The court granted the Commonwealth's application for an extension of the limitation period. The plaintiff was therefore permitted to bring her claim for damages for personal injury within the extended period.

Orders