Darwich v Sinclair

[2009] NSWDC 295

CITATION:	Darwich v Sinclair [2009] NSWDC 295
HEARING DATE(S):	15 May, 5 June, 9 October and 5 November 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 November 2009
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	15 May 2009
JURISDICTION:	Civil
JUDGMENT OF:	Levy SC DCJ
DECISION:	1. The time for commencing proceedings be extended until 18 December 2008; 2. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the motion, such costs are not to become payable until after the conclusion of the proceedings; 3. Exhibits may be returned; 4. Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.
CATCHWORDS:	LIMITATION OF ACTIONS –application for leave to proceed under s 109 of Motor Accidents Act 1999 – whether full and satisfactory explanation provided – whether delay has caused defendant significant prejudice – whether s 109(3)(c) quantum threshold requirement is satisfied – short form of notional damages assessment required for purpose of determining application
LEGISLATION CITED:	Civil Procedure Act 2002 Evidence Act 1995 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
CASES CITED:	Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541 Campbell v United Pacific Transport Ltd [1966] Qd R 465 Commonwealth of Australia v Smith [2005] NSWCA 478 Cowie v State Electricity Commission (Vic) (1964) VR 788 Dennis v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2008] NSWCA 37 Ditchburn v Seltsam (1989) 17 NSWLR 697 Henricks v Agnew (1997) 26 MVR 277 Holt v Wynter [2000] NSWCA 143; (2000) 49 NSWLR 128 Khoury v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (2006) NSWCA 51 Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346; (2001) 53 NSWLR 116 Smith v Grant (2006) 67 NSWLR 735 South Western Area Health Service v Gabriel [2001] NSWCA 477 State of NSW v Moss [2000] NSWCA 13 Sydney City Council v Zegarac (1998) 43 NSWLR 195 The Salvation Army (South Australia Property Trust) v Rundle [2008] NSWCA 347
PARTIES:	Daniel Darwich (Plaintiff) Wayne Sinclair (Defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	4432 of 2008
COUNSEL:	Mr K Andrews (Plaintiff) Mr W Fitzsimmons (Defendant)
SOLICITORS:	Carneys Lawyers (Plaintiff) Hunt & Hunt (Defendant)

JUDGMENT

Nature of case

1. The plaintiff Daniel Darwich proceeds upon a notice of motion filed on 26 September 2008 seeking leave pursuant to s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to continue proceedings filed on 19 September 2008. In those proceedings he claims damages as a result of injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27 August 2001.

Applicable legislation

2. Section 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 requires that in the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is not entitled to commence proceedings without the leave of the Court. Section 109(3)(a) provides that the Court must not grant leave to commence proceedings unless the plaintiff provides a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings. Section 109(3)(a) is informed by section 66(2) in which a full and satisfactory explanation for delay is defined as one which a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would have experienced. Section 109(3)(b)…