Karambelas v Zaknic (No. 2)

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.