O'Hagan v Sakker

Case [2011] NSWDC 60


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: O'Hagan v Sakker [2011] NSWDC 60
Hearing dates:24 February, 15 April, 13 & 27 May 2011
Decision date: 11 July 2011
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Levy SC DCJ
Decision:

1.Pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969, the time for filing of the plaintiff's proceedings against the defendant is extended to 29 September 2010;

2.Defendant's motion filed on 7 February 2011 seeking to strike out and dismiss the plaintiff's proceedings is dismissed;

3.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion seeking an extension of time in which to file proceedings;

4.The defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff in resisting the defendant's motion filed on 7 February 2011;

5.The exhibits may be returned;

6.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

Catchwords: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - alleged negligence in the course of abdominal surgery performed by defendant - retained surgical pack detected in plaintiff's abdominal cavity 15 years later - relevant facts and connection to surgery by defendant ascertained by plaintiff after expiry of limitation period - whether plaintiff is entitled to a grant of leave to proceed against the defendant notwithstanding expiry of limitation period - whether plaintiff's proceedings should be dismissed
Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002, s 5O
Limitation Act 1969, s 60G, s 60I, s 60L
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 13.4, r 14.28
Cases Cited: Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v Forst [1940] HCA 45; (1940) 64 CLR 538
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 25; (1996) 186 CLR 541
CRA v Martignago (1996) 39 NSWLR 13
Commonwealth of Australia v McLean (1997) 41 NSWLR 389
Commonwealth of Australia v Nelson [2001] NSWCA 443
Commonwealth of Australia v Smith [2005] NSWCA 478 per Giles JA at [102]
Dobler v Halverson and Ors [2007] NSWCA 335; (2007) 70 NSWLR 151
Drayton Coal Pty Ltd v Drain [1995] NSWCA 131
Elliott v Bickerstaff [1999] NSWCA 453
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gretton v The Commonwealth [2005] NSWSC 437
Holt v Wynter [2000] NSWCA 143; (2000) 49 NSWLR 128
Ingram v Fitzgerald (1936) NZLR 905
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227
Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15
Van Wyk v Lewis (1924) App D (S Af) 438
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Helen Caroline Anne O'Hagan (Plaintiff)
Samuel Sakker (Defendant)
Representation: Mr P Mansfield (Plaintiff)
Mr EC Muston (Defendant)
Shaw McDonald (Plaintiff)
Avant Law Pty Ltd (Defendant)
File Number(s):2010/321304

Judgment

Table of Contents

Notices of motion

[1] – [4]

The underlying case

[5]

Issues

[6]

Procedural history

[7] – [11]

Evidence

[12] – [13]

Credibility of testimony

[14] – [18]

Facts

[19] – [62]

Legislation

[63] – [65]

Consideration of Issue 1 – Whether claim is arguable

[66] – [89]

Consideration of Issue 2 – Plaintiff’s knowledge of the events

[90] – [113]

Consideration of Issue 3 – The just and…

Continue reading O'Hagan v Sakker

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
O'Hagan v Sakker [2011] NSWDC 60
Case
[2011] NSWDC 60
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

O'Hagan v Sakker is a case involving a claim for negligence in the course of abdominal surgery performed by the defendant. The plaintiff, O'Hagan, alleged that a retained surgical pack was found in his abdominal cavity fifteen years after the surgery. This pack was only discovered and linked to the defendant's surgery after the statutory limitation period had expired. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to proceed with his claim despite the limitation period having passed, and whether the plaintiff's proceedings should be dismissed.

The court had to consider whether the plaintiff could satisfy the criteria under section 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 to extend the limitation period. This required the court to assess if the plaintiff had exercised due diligence in ascertaining the relevant facts and if there were any special circumstances justifying the extension of time. The court found that the plaintiff had exercised due diligence and that there were indeed special circumstances that warranted the extension of the limitation period. Therefore, the plaintiff was granted leave to proceed with the claim.

Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's motion to strike out and dismiss the plaintiff's proceedings. The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the motion for an extension of time to file proceedings, as well as the costs of resisting the defendant's earlier motion. The exhibits were to be returned, and the plaintiff was granted liberty to apply for further orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.Pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969, the time for filing of the plaintiff's proceedings against the defendant is extended to 29 September 2010;

2.Defendant's motion filed on 7 February 2011 seeking to strike out and dismiss the plaintiff's proceedings is dismissed;

3.The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion seeking an extension of time in which to file proceedings;

4.The defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff in resisting the defendant's motion filed on 7 February 2011;

5.The exhibits may be returned;

6.Liberty to apply on 7 days notice if further orders are required.

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.