Christakos Transport Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Croft

The case of *Christakos Transport Pty Ltd (in Liq) v Croft* concerned an application for an extension of time to file and serve an ordinary summons for leave to appeal, and the subsequent appeal itself. The primary dispute revolved around whether the trial judge erred in exercising her discretion to extend the limitation period for the respondent, Croft, and in her decision regarding costs. The matter came before the appellate court following a decision by a trial judge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in her reasons for granting an extension of time under section 60C of the *Limitation Act*, and whether she had erred in her decision that each party should bear their own costs of the application for an extension of time. The court was required to consider the onus of proof in relation to the extension of time application and the application of section 60E of the *Limitation Act*.

The appellate court reasoned that while the trial judge's reasons for extending the limitation period might have had deficiencies in expression, they satisfied the legal requirements. The court found that the trial judge had adequately considered the delay and that it was open to her to conclude that the delay was explained, particularly given the complex corporate structure and the information available to the respondent's solicitors at the time. The court noted that submissions relying on hindsight were not persuasive. Regarding costs, the court observed that neither party had drawn the trial judge's attention to District Court Rule Part 29A rule 32, which generally mandates that the applicant for an extension of time pays the costs of the application unless the court orders otherwise. However, the court also acknowledged that it was usual for the applicant to bear costs even if successful.

Ultimately, the court granted leave to appeal, finding it desirable to finally resolve the limitation issue. However, the appeal was dismissed as the court found no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion to extend the limitation period. The court also dismissed the appellants' contention regarding costs, upholding the trial judge's order that each party pay their own costs.