Khoury v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd

In *Khoury v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd*, the claimant sought an extension of time to commence proceedings under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The claimant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident and had failed to file a Statement of Claim within the prescribed time limit. The primary judge had refused the extension of time, and the claimant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the claimant 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). This involved determining whether the trial judge had applied the correct legal test and whether, on the evidence, a full and satisfactory explanation had been established.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had erred in applying an incorrect test for determining whether a "full and satisfactory" explanation had been provided. The court held that the claimant's explanation, which included evidence of deficient initial legal advice from previous solicitors, reasonable steps taken by current solicitors to pursue the claim, and hindrances caused by the lack of cooperation and inadequate information from other parties, constituted a full and satisfactory explanation. The court reasoned that a reasonable person in the claimant's position, having received such advice and faced such obstacles, would likely have failed to comply with the statutory time requirements.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and extended the time for the filing of the Statement of Claim until 21 April 2006. The opponent was ordered to pay the claimant's costs of the summons for leave to appeal and the appeal, with a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act if entitled.