Halime v Singapore Airlines Ltd

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Halime v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2018] NSWCA 155
Hearing dates:	16 July 2018
Date of orders:	16 July 2018
Decision date:	16 July 2018
Before:	White JA at [1] and [16]; Sackville AJA at [15]
Decision:	1. Summons dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
Catchwords:	APPEALS – Summons seeking leave to appeal from summary dismissal of proceedings – Where proceedings commenced 20 years after expiry of limitation period – Where summons seeking leave to appeal filed over three years after orders made – Where applicant pleads that they have suffered psychological trauma and severe trauma after witnessing engine explosion – Warsaw Convention and Hague Protocol applied – No adequate explanation for delay – Proposed appeal would have no prospects of success - Summons dismissed - No question of principle
Legislation Cited:	Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 11 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 51.10
Cases Cited:	Agtrack (NT) Pty Ltd v Hatfield (2005) 223 CLR 251; [2005] HCA 38 American Airlines Inc v Georgeopoulos [No 2] [1998] NSWCA 273 Halime v Singapore Airlines Limited [2014] NSWSC 1681 Kotsambasis v Singapore Airlines Limited (1997) 42 NSWLR 110 Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd v Casey (2017) 93 NSWLR 438; [2017] NSWCA 32 South West Helicopters Pty Ltd v Stephenson [2017] NSWCA 312
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Emile Halime (Applicant) Singapore Airlines Limited (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: Self-represented (Applicant) J Hogan-Doran (Respondent)     Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2018/85315
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Division Citation: [2014] NSWSC 1681 Date of Decision: 26 November 2014 Before: Adams J File Number(s): 2014/160077

Judgment

1. WHITE JA:   By summons filed on 16 March 2018 the applicant, Mr Emile Halime, seeks leave to appeal from orders made in the Common Law Division (Adams J) on 26 November 2014 that the applicant’s statement of claim be dismissed.

2. The applicant’s proceedings were summarily dismissed pursuant to r 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

3. Uniform Civil Procedure Rule, r 51.10(1)(b) required that a summons seeking leave to appeal from the orders of 26 November 2014 be filed and served within 28 days. The applicant requires an extension of time under r 51.10(2).

4. I would refuse the extension, partly on the ground that the delay of over three years in filing the summons is insufficiently explained, but primarily on the ground that the appeal for which leave is sought would have no prospects of success and the application for leave to appeal is bound to fail.

5. As to the first ground, the delay is gross. The applicant says that the reasons for the delay are that he was unaware of the requirement for the summons to be filed within 28 days. He says that there was no lawyer who would take the matter for him without payment and by inference he says that he was unable to afford…