Dixon v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Ltd

The case of Dixon v Isis Central Sugar Mill Company Ltd involved a plaintiff who sought damages for personal injuries sustained during his employment. The plaintiff applied to join the respondent as a further defendant and to extend the limitation period, which had expired. The plaintiff alleged that the identity of the respondent as a defendant was unknown to him, and sought an extension of the limitation period on this basis. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the respondent and whether a material fact of a decisive character was not within the plaintiff’s means of knowledge.

The court found that it was not unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to make inquiries or instruct his solicitors to make inquiries where the plaintiff did not know the identity of the employer of the loader. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not know that the respondent was the employer of the loader until at least 30 September 2021, the date of the compulsory conference. However, the court was not satisfied that the plaintiff had taken all reasonable steps to find out that fact before the date specified in s 31(2)(a) of the Act. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the identity of the respondent as the employer of the loader was not within his knowledge until after the date specified in s 31(2)(a) of the Act and that the power to order that the limitation period be extended was not enlivened. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, and the court will hear the parties as to costs.

The court's decision was based on the principle that whether an applicant for an extension of time has taken all reasonable steps to find out a fact can only be answered by reference to what can reasonably be expected from the actual person in the circumstances of the applicant. If the person has taken all the steps that he or she is able to take to find out the fact, and has not found it out, that fact is not within the person’s knowledge for the purposes of s 30(1)(c) of the Act. Conversely, if the person has not taken all the steps that he or she is able to take to find out the fact, then the person will not have established that the fact was not within his or her means of knowledge.

In this case, the court found that the plaintiff had not taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the respondent as the employer of the loader. The plaintiff had been put on notice on 18 June 2018 of the need to identify the employer of the loader, but he did not know the name of the person who loaded his truck or who employed the loader. Although the plaintiff's solicitor had taken steps to identify the employer of the loader, the court found that the plaintiff himself had not taken all reasonable steps to find out that fact. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the identity of the respondent as the employer of the loader was not within his knowledge until after the date specified in s 31(2)(a) of the Act and that the power to order that the limitation period be extended was not enlivened.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to extend the limitation period. The court found that the plaintiff had not taken all reasonable steps to ascertain the identity of the respondent as the employer of the loader and that the identity of the respondent was not within the plaintiff’s knowledge until after the limitation period had expired. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the identity of the respondent was a material fact of a decisive character that was not within his means of knowledge. The court will hear the parties as to costs.