Karambelas v Zaknic (No. 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

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 38
Category: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

  1. BASTEN JA: I agree with Meagher JA.

  1. 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

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NSWCA 433
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a motor vehicle accident claim brought by the appellant, Mr Karambelas, against the respondents. The primary judge had made orders in the District Court of New South Wales concerning the appellant's claim, which the appellant sought to have set aside. The central issue revolved around the appellant's compliance with the notice of claim requirements under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW).

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.