Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Karambelas v Zaknic (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 433 Hearing dates: 1 December 2014 Decision date: 15 December 2014 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Meagher JA at [2];
Simpson J at [39]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the District Court on 6 December 2013.
3. Respondents' notice of motion filed in the District Court on 17 September 2013 dismissed.
4. Respondents pay the appellant's costs of that notice of motion.
5. Respondents pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: TORTS - motor vehicle accident - notice of claim - claim not made within six months of accident - primary judge erred in addressing period of delay after the claim was made - whether appellant had "full and satisfactory explanation" for delay - Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 73 Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), ss 48, 50, 51, 66(2), 72, 73, 74(1), 94, 95, 96, Pt 3.2, Pt 4.4 Cases Cited: Nominal Defendant v Browne [2013] NSWCA 197; 64 MVR 214
Mancini v Thompson [2002] NSWCA 38Category: Principal judgment Parties: Fofie Karambelas (Appellant)
Jessica Zaknic (First Respondent)
Sladjan Lakic (Second Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
R Sheldon SC with B Tzatzagos (Appellant)
K P Rewell SC with M A Cleary (Respondents)
Solicitors
Brydens Law Office (Appellant)
Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s): 2014/4958 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Date of Decision:
- 2013-12-09 00:00:00
- Before:
- Sorby DCJ
- File Number(s):
- DC 2013/231274
Judgment
BASTEN JA: I agree with Meagher JA.
MEAGHER JA: This is an appeal by leave from a decision of the primary judge (Sorby DCJ) dismissing proceedings brought by the appellant against the respondents for damages in respect of injuries sustained in a motor accident. Those proceedings were dismissed under s 73(7) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) (MAC Act) because the primary judge was not satisfied that the appellant had a "full and satisfactory explanation" for her delay in not making her claim (by giving notice in the required form to the respondents' third-party insurer) within six months of the motor accident: s 72(1), (2). Leave to appeal was granted on 5 June 2014: Karambelas v Zaknic [2014] NSWCA 187.
The making of the late claim and commencement of proceedings
The motor accident occurred on 27 March 2009. The respondents' vehicle ran into the rear of the appellant's vehicle causing it to collide with the stationary vehicle in front of it. The appellant's two year old son was also in her vehicle and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Karambelas v Zaknic (No. 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 433
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the appellant had provided a "full and satisfactory explanation" for the delay in making his claim, as required by section 73 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). This involved considering the period of delay between the accident and the lodgement of the claim, and whether the primary judge had erred in focusing on the period of delay after the claim was made rather than the initial delay.
The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the delay. The reasoning focused on the statutory requirement for a "full and satisfactory explanation" for the delay in making the claim, not for any subsequent delays. The court determined that the explanation provided by the appellant for the initial delay was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 73.
Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The orders made by the District Court on 6 December 2013 were set aside, and the respondents' notice of motion filed in the District Court on 17 September 2013 was dismissed. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellant's costs of that notice of motion and the costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the District Court on 6 December 2013.
3. Respondents' notice of motion filed in the District Court on 17 September 2013 dismissed.
4. Respondents pay the appellant's costs of that notice of motion.
5. Respondents pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.