| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PERSONAL INJURIES LIST
S CI 2017 00417
| ZAHRA HASSAN BY HER ADMINISTRATOR STATE TRUSTEES | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| DAVID NOA | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | Ierodiaconou AsJ |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 18 May 2021 |
DATE OF RULING: | 17 June 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Hassan v Noa (No 2) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VSC 339 |
---
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Transport accident – Personal injuries – Application for extension of time during which action may be brought – Delay – Delay between accrual of cause of action and application – Reasons for delay – Prejudice – Whether extension of time should be granted – Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 5(1)(a), 23A – Transport Accident Commission v Murdoch (2020) 92 MVR 1 – Application granted.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr A. D. B. Ingram QC with Ms M. Pilipasidis | Slater & Gordon Ltd |
| For the Defendant | Mr C. J. Blanden QC with Ms A. Bannon | Transport Accident Commission |
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Evidence............................................................................................................................................... 1
Background......................................................................................................................................... 6
Plaintiff’s submissions................................................................................................................... 13
Length of and reasons for the plaintiff’s delay....................................................................... 13
Prejudice....................................................................................................................................... 14
Other circumstances................................................................................................................... 16
Submissions in reply................................................................................................................... 16
Defendant’s submissions............................................................................................................... 17
General prejudice of delay......................................................................................................... 17
Specific prejudice of delay......................................................................................................... 18
Causation...................................................................................................................................... 19
Duration of disability................................................................................................................. 20
Whether there was prompt action by the plaintiff................................................................. 22
Prejudice to the plaintiff is irrelevant....................................................................................... 22
Applicable principles...................................................................................................................... 23
Analysis.............................................................................................................................................. 24
Length of and reasons for the plaintiff’s delay....................................................................... 24
Prejudice to the defendant......................................................................................................... 25
Extent the defendant took steps to make available to the plaintiff means of ascertaining facts which were or might be relevant to her cause of action.......................................................... 30
Duration of any disability of the plaintiff arising on or after the date of accrual of the cause of action................................................................................................................................... 30
Extent to which the plaintiff acted promptly and reasonably once she knew the acts or omissions of the defendant, to which her injuries were attributable, might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages............................................................................... 31
Steps, if any, taken by the plaintiff to obtain medical, legal or other advice and the nature of the advice he received............................................................................................................. 32
Other circumstances................................................................................................................... 32
Synthesising competing considerations.................................................................................. 32
Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 33
HER HONOUR:
The plaintiff’s life has been very challenging. She has suffered from homelessness, illness and addiction issues. The plaintiff was injured in a transport accident in 2005. She did not take any steps to obtain legal advice until almost nine years’ later. Legal proceedings were then instituted on her behalf. The plaintiff wants to pursue an action for damages. However, the period in which she could do so expired almost ten years ago. The plaintiff has now made an application to extend time so that she can pursue her damages claim. The defendant opposes the application, chiefly on the ground that he has been prejudiced by the plaintiff’s delay in bringing her application.
The issue for determination in this ruling is whether time should be…
Continue reading Hassan v Noa (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hassan v Noa (No 2) [2021] VSC 339
- Case
- [2021] VSC 339
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the delay in bringing the action was such that it should not be condoned, and if the reasons provided for the delay justified an extension of the limitation period. The court considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law, particularly Transport Accident Commission v Murdoch (2020) 92 MVR 1, to assess the appropriateness of granting an extension of time.
In examining the application, the court took into account the significant delay between the accrual of the cause of action and the application for an extension. The reasons for the delay, including Hassan's health issues and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, were weighed against the potential prejudice to Noa. The court concluded that despite the delay and some prejudice to Noa, the reasons for the delay were compelling enough to warrant granting the extension under section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). The court found that the extension should be granted in the interests of justice.
The court granted Hassan's application for an extension of time to bring the action against Noa. The specific orders made by the court were not detailed in the provided text, but it was noted that the application was successful.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.