Karambelas v Zaknic

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the District Court, where the primary judge had dismissed a statement of claim in a motor accident claim. The dismissal was based on the plaintiff's alleged failure to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making the claim, as required by section 72 of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The applicant contended that the primary judge had erred in law by considering the delay from the date of the accident to the date of the court hearing, rather than the period from the accident to the making of the claim.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the primary judge had correctly applied the relevant provisions of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW), specifically sections 66 and 73, in determining if a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay had been provided. The court was also required to consider whether the reasons given by the primary judge for rejecting the plaintiff's explanations were themselves adequate, and whether there was an inconsistency between previous decisions of the Court of Appeal in *Mancini v Thompson* and *Nominal Defendant v Browne*.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge may not have directed himself to the correct question regarding the period of delay to be considered. It appeared that the judge had calculated the delay from the date of the accident to the date of the proceedings, whereas the relevant period for assessing the explanation was from the accident to the making of the claim. The court also noted that the judgment below did not seem to adequately address the substance of the explanations provided by the plaintiff, and the reasons for rejecting them appeared insufficient. Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal.