Crick and Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application by Mr Crick for a second extension of time to file an application for review, against Prosegur Australia Pty Ltd. The application was heard by SM Toohey.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant a second extension of time for Mr Crick to file his application for review, given a previous extension had already been granted. This required the Court to consider the applicant's delay, whether he had rested on his rights, and the potential prejudice to the respondent.

SM Toohey refused the extension of time. His Honour noted that while Mr Crick was not required to demonstrate strong merits, the available medical evidence, though incomplete, weighed against the likelihood of success. The Court found that the lengthy delay, during which Mr Crick had not provided evidence of following up with his solicitors, coupled with the prejudice the respondent would suffer and the medical evidence favouring the respondent, meant it was not reasonable to grant a further extension. Although responsibility for the delay rested with Mr Crick's former solicitor, this alone was not sufficient reason to grant the extension.