Buller v Black

The appeal in *Buller v Black* concerned the application of provisions within the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW) relating to the limitation period for making a claim for damages arising from a motor accident. The central dispute revolved around whether the claimant had provided a "full and satisfactory explanation" for a significant delay in lodging their claim, as required by the Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the claimant had indeed provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making their claim. This required the court to consider the meaning of "full and satisfactory explanation" in the context of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988*, and to assess whether a reasonable person in the claimant's position would have acted similarly. The court also had to determine the appropriate test for assessing the justifiability of the delay.

The majority of the Court of Appeal, comprising Mason P and Giles JA, held that the primary judge's assessment was correct. They reasoned that the "court is satisfied" limb of the relevant section required the court to make an objective assessment of the explanation provided. This assessment should consider whether a reasonable person, in the claimant's circumstances, would have delayed in making their claim. The court found that the explanation offered by the claimant, which included factors such as their medical condition and lack of awareness of their legal rights, was sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement. Ipp JA dissented, finding that the explanation was not sufficiently full or satisfactory.

The appeal was dismissed by majority.