Lyu v Jeon

In *Lyu v Jeon*, the applicant sought leave to appeal against a District Court decision that granted the respondent leave to commence proceedings outside the three-year statutory period for motor accident claims. The respondent had delayed notifying her claim for over two years following the motor accident.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the respondent had provided a "satisfactory explanation" for her delay in notifying the claim, as required by section 109(3)(a) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). This involved assessing whether the respondent's conduct and the reasons for her delay were reasonable in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had erred in concluding that the respondent had provided a satisfactory explanation. The court noted that the respondent had made a false claim under student health insurance and that the driver, who was a friend, had agreed to pay the balance of her outstanding expenses. When the driver failed to honour this agreement, the respondent then notified a claim. The Court reasoned that a reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have acted as she did and would not have delayed notifying the claim in these circumstances.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, and set aside the orders made by the District Court. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal.