Maddox v Faull - [2004] TASSC 41

[2004] TASSC 41

CITATION: Maddox v Faull & Anor [2004] TASSC 41

PARTIES:  MADDOX, Robert Leslie
  v
  DOCTOR JACQUELINE FAULL
  THE STATE OF TASMANIA

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  246/2003
DELIVERED ON:  7 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  13 October 2003, 11 March 2004 and 3 May 2004
DECISION OF:  Master S J Holt

CATCHWORDS:

Limitation of actions – Extension of time – Considerations – Arguable case – Length of delay – Explanation for delay – Prejudice – Exercise of discretion.
Hill v Iluka Corporation Ltd [2002] TASSC 113 applied.
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s5(3).
Aust Dig Limitation of Actions [55]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  J Crotty
             Defendants:  P Turner
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  James Crotty
             Defendants:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 41
Number of Paragraphs: 15

Serial No 41/2004
File No 246/2003

ROBERT LESLIE MADDOX v DR JAQUELINE FAULL
and THE STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER S J HOLT
7 May 2004

This is an application under the Limitation Act 1974, s5(3), for an extension of time for the bringing of an action in negligence for damages for personal injury. The Act, s5(1), imposes a primary limitation period of three years, but s5(3) confers upon the court a discretion to extend that period for up to a further three years if “in all the circumstances of the case it is just and reasonable so to do”. The events about which the plaintiff complains occurred in June 1999, but it is not disclosed when the injury is claimed to have been suffered. The writ issued on 16 May 2003, and the application was filed on 30 September 2003. The hearing of the application commenced on 13 October 2003, but was interrupted by two lengthy adjournments whilst the plaintiff’s advisors sought out satisfactory medical evidence to support the application.

In Hill v Iluka Corporation Ltd [2002] TASSC 113 at par23, the Full Court said that in considering such an application “regard must be paid to whether there is an arguable case, the length of the delay, the explanation for it and the degree of prejudice the delay has caused and/or will cause the defendant”.

The plaintiff’s action is against a doctor at the Royal Hobart Hospital and the State of Tasmania as the entity responsible for the day-to-day operations of the hospital. The plaintiff’s affidavit evidence as to the existence of an arguable case was as follows. On 22 June 1999, he attended the Emergency Medicine Department at the hospital with an injury to his left wrist, considerable swelling and complaining of extreme pain. An x-ray was ordered and reviewed. Thereafter the plaintiff was advised by the doctor that there were no broken bones and that he should keep his left arm elevated in a sling and take paracetamol for the pain whilst the injury healed. Because of the level of pain he was suffering the plaintiff was not convinced that there was no break and asked the doctor to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Maddox v Faull and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] TASSC 41
Decision Date: 7 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maddox v Faull was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the primary issue revolved around the extension of the time limit for the defendant to initiate legal proceedings against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, Maddox, sought to enforce a contractual obligation against the defendant, Faull, but was met with a plea that the defendant's delay in commencing proceedings was unjustified. The court had to determine whether the defendant's application for an extension of time to file the suit was warranted, considering the length of the delay and the explanation provided by the defendant.

The legal issues that arose for the court's consideration included the criteria for assessing the reasonableness of a delay in initiating legal proceedings, the relevance of any prejudice suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the delay, and the extent to which the court should exercise its discretion in granting an extension of time. The court needed to balance the plaintiff's right to enforce the contract within a reasonable timeframe against the defendant's request for an extension, taking into account the totality of circumstances.

In evaluating the application, the court examined the length of the delay, the explanation offered by the defendant for the delay, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff. The court held that the defendant's explanation for the delay was insufficient and that the delay itself was unreasonable. The court also found that the plaintiff would suffer prejudice if the extension was granted, as the delay would impair their ability to adequately respond to the claim. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to deny the defendant's application for an extension of time, finding that the application did not meet the necessary threshold to warrant an extension.

Orders

Orders of the court

Master S J Holt

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.