New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: GIO GENERAL LIMITED v LOVE [2009] NSWCA 269 HEARING DATE(S): 31/08/2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
4 November 2009JUDGMENT OF: Basten JA at 1; Young JA at 13; Handley AJA at 14 DECISION: (1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) The draft notice of appeal is to be filed within 10 days. Further compliance with the rules otherwise dispensed with.
(3) Appeal allowed with costs.
(4) Orders of the District Court set aside, and in lieu thereof order that the Notice of Motion of 9 April 2008 be dismissed with costs.
(5) Respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.CATCHWORDS: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – extension of limitation period – loss of realistic claim in contract against third party – witnesses no longer available or uncooperative – statements no substitute – actual prejudice – extension refused. LEGISLATION CITED: District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous) Provisions Act 1946
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)CASES CITED: Border Auto Wreckers (Wodonga) Pty Ltd v Strathdee [1997] 2 VR 31
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1986) 186 CLR 541
Creevey v Barrois [2005] NSWCA 264
Commonwealth of Australia v Shaw (2006) 66 NSWLR 325
Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36; 117 CLR 423
Henry Kendall & Sons v William Lillico & Sons Ltd [1969] 2 AC 31
Merton Enterprises Pty Ltd v Nelson (1988) 13 NSWLR 454
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [2005] FCAFC 125
Walters v Cross-Country Fuels Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 10PARTIES: GIO General Limited - Applicant
James Michael Love - RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40049/2009 COUNSEL: G Watson SC & N Chen - Applicant
H Kelly SC & D O'Dowd - RespondentSOLICITORS: Holman Webb Lawyers - Applicant
Cox West Lawyers - RespondentLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 1381/08 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Kearns DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 02/12/2008
40049/09
4 November 2009BASTEN JA
YOUNG JA
HANDLEY AJA
GIO GENERAL LIMITED v JAMES MICHAEL LOVE
CATCHWORDS
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – extension of limitation period – loss of realistic claim in contract against third party – witnesses no longer available or uncooperative – statements no substitute – actual prejudice – extension refused.
HEADNOTE
An employee of ACI injured his back on 23 February 2001 while recovering another person from a confined space during a training course in emergency procedures conducted by Firefox under contract with ACI. He applied for and received workers compensation benefits. In June 2003 Firefox learnt of the accident for the first time when ACI brought proceedings under s 151Z of the Workers Compensation Act against Firefox to recover the compensation it had paid the worker. Firefox’s insurer had the claim investigated at that time. The three-year limitation period expired on 22 February 2004. The section s151Z proceedings were settled in May 2007 on unknown terms. The six-year limitation period for claims in contract by Firefox against ACI expired…
Continue reading GIO General Ltd v Love
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- GIO General Limited v Love [2009] NSWCA 269
- Case
- [2009] NSWCA 269
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the Court of Appeal of New South Wales concerned an application by GIO General Ltd for an extension of the limitation period to bring a claim against a third party. The dispute arose from a situation where the plaintiff, Mr. Love, had lost the ability to pursue a contractual claim against a third party due to the expiry of the relevant limitation period. GIO, as Mr. Love's insurer, sought to step into his shoes to pursue this claim, but faced the same limitation period issues.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had erred in granting an extension of time for GIO to commence proceedings against the third party. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the grounds relied upon by GIO for seeking the extension, namely the unavailability or uncooperativeness of witnesses and the consequent loss of a realistic claim against the third party, constituted sufficient prejudice to warrant overriding the statutory limitation period.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of prejudice. The court held that the unavailability of witnesses and the difficulty in obtaining statements did not, in themselves, amount to actual prejudice that would justify an extension of time. The reasoning was that statements, while not a perfect substitute for oral testimony, could still form the basis of a claim, and the mere fact that witnesses were uncooperative did not automatically extinguish a cause of action. The court emphasized that the prejudice must be substantial and demonstrably affect the ability to pursue the claim effectively.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court, and dismissed GIO's application for an extension of time. GIO was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and was granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court had erred in granting an extension of time for GIO to commence proceedings against the third party. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the grounds relied upon by GIO for seeking the extension, namely the unavailability or uncooperativeness of witnesses and the consequent loss of a realistic claim against the third party, constituted sufficient prejudice to warrant overriding the statutory limitation period.
The Court of Appeal found that the District Court had erred in its assessment of prejudice. The court held that the unavailability of witnesses and the difficulty in obtaining statements did not, in themselves, amount to actual prejudice that would justify an extension of time. The reasoning was that statements, while not a perfect substitute for oral testimony, could still form the basis of a claim, and the mere fact that witnesses were uncooperative did not automatically extinguish a cause of action. The court emphasized that the prejudice must be substantial and demonstrably affect the ability to pursue the claim effectively.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the District Court, and dismissed GIO's application for an extension of time. GIO was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal and was granted a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) The draft notice of appeal is to be filed within 10 days. Further compliance with the rules otherwise dispensed with.
(3) Appeal allowed with costs.
(4) Orders of the District Court set aside, and in lieu thereof order that the Notice of Motion of 9 April 2008 be dismissed with costs.
(5) Respondent to have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.