Hickey's Transport Pty Limited v Ken Gordon

Hickey's Transport Pty Limited appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of Hungerford ADCJ to reinstate a claim brought by Mr Ken Gordon under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). Mr Gordon's claim had initially been dismissed for want of prosecution, and the appeal concerned whether his subsequent application to reinstate the claim should have been granted.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Gordon had provided a "full and satisfactory explanation" for the delay in prosecuting his claim, as required by section 110 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999*. This involved a review of the findings of fact made by the primary judge, particularly concerning the credibility of witnesses and the reasons for the delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in law by failing to properly consider the relevant factors when assessing whether the explanation for the delay was "full and satisfactory". While acknowledging that mistakes by solicitors could, in some circumstances, constitute a sufficient explanation, the Court determined that the explanation offered in this instance, which included allegations of solicitor error, was not sufficiently detailed or substantiated to meet the statutory threshold. The Court emphasised that the onus was on Mr Gordon to demonstrate a full and satisfactory explanation for the significant delay.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, set aside the orders of Hungerford ADCJ, and dismissed Mr Gordon's application to reinstate his claim. Mr Gordon was ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal, the appeal itself, and the hearing before the primary judge.