Fernandes v Hayson
Case
•
[1989] NSWCA 78
•21 November 1989
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Fernandes v Hayson [1989] NSWCA 78
[1989] NSWCA 78
21 November 1989
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Fernandes v Hayson* [1989] NSWCA 78, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Fernandes, and the respondent, Hayson. The case concerned an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation and application of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) in relation to the appellant's claim. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant's cause of action was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal analysed the relevant provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969* and the established case law concerning the commencement of limitation periods. The court found that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the law to the facts of the case, concluding that the appellant's claim was indeed brought outside the statutory time limit. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Supreme Court had erred in its interpretation and application of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) in relation to the appellant's claim. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant's cause of action was statute-barred.
The Court of Appeal analysed the relevant provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969* and the established case law concerning the commencement of limitation periods. The court found that the Supreme Court had correctly applied the law to the facts of the case, concluding that the appellant's claim was indeed brought outside the statutory time limit. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
-
Equity & Trusts
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Constructive Trust
-
Fiduciary Duty
-
Estoppel
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Fernandes v Hayson [1989] NSWCA 78
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0