District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Hobson v Rogers [2018] NSWDC 414 Hearing dates: 30 October 2018 and 1 November 2018 Date of orders: 20 December 2018 Decision date: 20 December 2018 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Gibson DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs.
(3) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.Catchwords: PERSONAL INJURY – plaintiff injured in motorcycle accident – liability – quantum – whether the explanation for delay in commencing proceedings was full and satisfactory conformably with s 109 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) – no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 66, 109 and 110 Cases Cited: Container Terminals Australia v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
Hill v Richards [2011] NSWCA 291
Kappadoukas v Fransepp Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCA 366
Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Mastronardi v State of New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 270
Van Garderen v Channel Seven Melbourne Pty Ltd [2016] VCC 953
Walker v Howard [2009] NSWCA 408Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff: George Brian Hobson
Defendant: Glenn RogersRepresentation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Mr J Reimer
Defendant: Mr A Black SC
Plaintiff: Maxwell Berghouse & Ives
Defendant: Holman Webb Lawyers
File Number(s): 2016/373484 Publication restriction: None
Judgment
The plaintiff’s claim for damages for personal injury
-
The plaintiff brings proceedings for damages arising out of the circumstances in which he suffered injury when he fell from his motorcycle onto the hard shoulder of the road while riding along Henry Lawson Drive, Mudgee in the State of New South Wales on 12 October 2008.
-
The accident is described in the statement of claim as follows:
“1. On 12 October 2008 at about 11.30am, the Plaintiff was riding his Triumph motorcycle, registered No. WUC70 in a generally southerly direction along Henry Lawson Drive, Mudgee in the State of New South Wales.
2. As the Plaintiff proceeded, the Plaintiff’s motorcycle approached a Honda motorcycle, register No. GROO, ridden by the Defendant which had slowed to almost a stop or had stopped.
3. Whilst the Plaintiff was overtaking the Defendant’s motorcycle, the Defendant accelerated his motorcycle rapidly which required the plaintiff to take sudden action to avoid a collision.
4. In so doing, the plaintiff lost control of his motorcycle, and crashed onto the hard shoulder of the road.”
-
The particulars of negligence pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim are as follows:
Failing to allow the plaintiff to overtake in a safe manner;
Accelerating rapidly and into the path of the plaintiff’s motorcycle so as to oblige the plaintiff to take emergency action;
Failing to take any adequate precautions for the plaintiff’s safety;
Putting the plaintiff in a position of peril.
-
The defences raised in the pleadings are:
The defendant denies that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action in that the plaintiff first made a claim against the Nominal Defendant which was settled by a…
Continue reading Hobson v Rogers
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hobson v Rogers [2018] NSWDC 414
- Case
- [2018] NSWDC 414
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings, as required by section 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to determine the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and the appropriate quantum of damages.
The court found that the plaintiff's explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings was not full and satisfactory. The plaintiff's delay in initiating the action was attributed to a failure to understand the full extent of the injuries sustained in the accident. Consequently, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under section 109 of the Act. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. As a result, the court entered judgment in favour of the defendant. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs, with liberty to apply in relation to costs, and the exhibits were retained for 28 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Judgment for the defendant.
(2) Plaintiff pay defendant’s costs.
(3) Liberty to apply in relation to costs.
(4) Exhibits retained for 28 days.
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.