Langlands v Simovic - [2002] NSWCA 57

CITATION: LANGLANDS v SIMOVIC [2002] NSWCA 57

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40865/01

HEARING DATE(S): 4 March 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
4 March 2002

PARTIES :

KEVIN LANGLANDS
v
DAMON SIMOVIC

JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 18; Ipp AJA at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 5013/01

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Hogan ADCJ

COUNSEL: Appellant - A S Morrison SC
Respondent - D J Cutler

SOLICITORS: Appellant - Vandervords
Respondent - Ferguson Holz

CATCHWORDS: MOTOR ACCIDENTS ACT - limitation period - extension of time - full and satisfactory explanation

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Act

CASES CITED:
n/a.

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused. Orders made.

40865/01
DC 5013/01

HANDLEY JA
BEAZLEY JA
IPP AJA
4 March 2002

KEVIN LANGLANDS v DAMON SIMOVIC

MOTOR ACCIDENTS ACT – limitation period – extension of time – full and satisfactory explanation

Under s 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act leave may be granted to commence proceedings more than three years after the date of the motor accident to which the claim related, but the claimant must provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay (s 52 (4B)(a)).

The claimant was injured in a motor vehicle accident on 30 March 1997. At some time in 2000 he sought advice from a solicitor who advised him that he had had only six months in which to bring a claim. That solicitor did not advise the appellant that he could apply for an extension of time. The appellant sought advice from a different solicitor on 12 September 2000. He was then advised that as the three year limitation period had expired on 30 March 2000, he would need to seek the leave of the Court before he could bring proceedings.

An application for an extension of time was made to the District Court. The Judge held that the claimant’s explanation was full and credible, but was not satisfactory. The application was refused.

HELD

ORDERS

(1) Leave to appeal refused;

40865/01
DC 5013/01

HANDLEY JA
BEAZLEY JA
IPP AJA

KEVIN LANGLANDS v DAMON SIMOVIC

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Hogan DCJ given on 17 July 2001. His Honour had before him an application under s 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act for leave to commence proceedings in respect of a motor accident more than three years after the date of the motor accident to which the claim related.

2 The accident occurred on 30 March 1997. The plaintiff was a front seat passenger in a motor vehicle driven by the defendant which was proceeding…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Langlands v Simovic

Details

AGLC: Langlands v Simovic [2002] NSWCA 57
Case: [2002] NSWCA 57
Decision Date: 4 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application for an extension of time to file a claim under the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* (NSW). The appellant, Mr Langlands, sought to appeal the decision of a single judge of the District Court of New South Wales who had refused his application for an extension of time.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court judge had erred in law in refusing the extension of time. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the grant of extensions of time under the *Motor Accidents Act*, particularly the requirement for a "full and satisfactory explanation" for the delay in filing the claim.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that the onus was on the appellant to provide a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay. It was held that the explanation provided by the appellant was not satisfactory, as it did not adequately account for the significant period of delay. The Court found no error in the District Court judge's assessment of the evidence and the application of the relevant legal principles.

Consequently, leave to appeal was refused, and the orders of the District Court were affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave to appeal refused. Orders made.

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.

CITATION:	LANGLANDS v SIMOVIC [2002] NSWCA 57
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40865/01
HEARING DATE(S):	4 March 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	4 March 2002
PARTIES :	KEVIN LANGLANDS v DAMON SIMOVIC
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1; Beazley JA at 18; Ipp AJA at 19

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	DC 5013/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Hogan ADCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant - A S Morrison SC Respondent - D J Cutler
SOLICITORS:	Appellant - Vandervords Respondent - Ferguson Holz
CATCHWORDS:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS ACT - limitation period - extension of time - full and satisfactory explanation
LEGISLATION CITED:	Motor Accidents Act
CASES CITED:	n/a.
DECISION:	Leave to appeal refused. Orders made.