McDonald v Burchmore

Case [2022] NSWDC 709


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: McDonald v Burchmore [2022] NSWDC 709
Hearing dates: 11 November 2022
Date of orders: 11 November 2022
Decision date: 11 November 2022
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

I extend the limitation period for bringing a claim arising out of the death of the late Lucija Buljevic on 1 October 2016 until the 21 February 2022. By consent, each party will pay her own costs of this application.

Catchwords:

CIVIL – MOTOR ACCIDENT – NOTICE OF MOTION – EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD – Compensation for relatives - Whether the Plaintiff has provided a “full and satisfactory explanation” pursuant to MACA – Whether the Plaintiff had sufficient knowledge and control of her Solicitor’s conduct.

Legislation Cited:

Compensation to Relatives Act 1897 (NSW)

Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Rahman v Al-Maharmeh [2021] NSWCA 31

Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244

Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Plaintiff – Sandra McDonald
Defendant – Gloria Burchmore
Representation: Counsel:
Plaintiff - Mr Jones, B.
Defendant – No appearance.
Solicitors:
Plaintiff – Stacks Goudkamp
Defendant – No appearance.
File Number(s): 2022/00051024
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Before me is a motion, notice of which was filed on 9 June 2022, but the only prayer for relief is this:

“The plaintiff be granted leave to commence proceedings out of time pursuant to Section 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999”.

  1. In fact, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings on 21 February 2022. I assume the Plaintiff seeks leave, nunc pro tunc, to rely on that Statement of Claim. The claim pleaded in the Statement of Claim is a claim under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897. The Plaintiff is the daughter of the late Lucija Buljevic. She brings the proceedings on behalf of her father, Marko Buljevic, the husband of the late Lucija Buljevic, on her own behalf, and on behalf of her sister, Silvija Buljevic.

  2. The proceedings are also brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of her children, Cameron McDonald, and Samuel McDonald, each of whom is a grandchild of the deceased, and also on behalf of the children of her sister Silvija: Klaudija Christine McMahon, Justin Nikola McMahon, Harley Storm McMahon, Jackson Levi Joshua McMahon, and Domanic Axel John McMahon. Of the grandchildren of the deceased, Klaudija and Justin are now, both sui juris. Klaudija is, on my calculation, 21 years old, and Justin is 20 years old. The evidence before me establishes that they have left the care of their mother and are residing together on the South Coast of New South Wales.

  3. The proceedings arise out of the death of Lucija Buljevic. On 15 August 2016, she was in the car park of the Coles supermarket in Willarong Road, Caringbah, when she was struck by a vehicle being driven by the Defendant. As a result of that accident, the deceased was severely injured, however, she did not die of her injuries until 1 October…

Continue reading McDonald v Burchmore

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McDonald v Burchmore [2022] NSWDC 709
Case
[2022] NSWDC 709
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McDonald v Burchmore involved a dispute regarding the extension of the limitation period for bringing a claim arising from a motor accident that occurred on 1 October 2016, resulting in the death of Lucija Buljevic. The plaintiff, who was the daughter of the deceased, sought to extend the limitation period for bringing a claim against the defendant, Burchmore. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the plaintiff had provided a "full and satisfactory explanation" as required by the Motor Accidents Act 1994 (NSW) for the delay in bringing the claim. This explanation needed to be such that it would justify the extension of the limitation period. The court also had to determine whether the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge and control over her solicitor's conduct to be held accountable for the delay.

The court considered the evidence provided by the plaintiff and her solicitor, focusing on the reasonableness of the explanation given for the delay in filing the claim. The plaintiff argued that she had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it to her emotional state following the accident and the advice she received from her solicitor. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay, the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and her solicitor, and the reasonableness of the explanation provided. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and granted the extension of the limitation period. The court's decision was based on the balance of probabilities, and the court found that the plaintiff had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

As a result of the court's decision, the limitation period for bringing a claim arising from the death of Lucija Buljevic was extended until 21 February 2022. The court ordered that each party would bear their own costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

I extend the limitation period for bringing a claim arising out of the death of the late Lucija Buljevic on 1 October 2016 until the 21 February 2022. By consent, each party will pay her own costs of this application.

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.