Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd - [2015] NSWDC 157

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 157
Hearing dates: 23 January 2015
Date of orders: 28 January 2015
Decision date: 28 January 2015
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) Plaintiff be granted leave to continue these proceedings pursuant to s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.
(2)   Costs of the notices of motion be costs in the proceedings.
(3)   The notices of motion be otherwise dismissed.
(4)   List for directions on Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 9.30am before the Judicial Registrar.

Catchwords: MOTOR ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION – delay in making claim and commencing proceedings – full and satisfactory explanation for delays – whether letter of advice received by plaintiff
Legislation Cited: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 66, s 73, s 109
Cases Cited: Afarin v Excelior Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 65
Holt v Wynter (2000) 49 NSWLR 128
Ly v Mukdassi [2013] NSWDC 257
Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Barry Robert Parrish (plaintiff)
Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd (first defendant)
Rodney Broome (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr D-L Del Monte (plaintiff)
Ds: Mr J Turnbull (defendants)
Solicitors:
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (plaintiff)
Holman Webb Lawyers (defendants)

File Number(s): 2014/127936
Publication restriction: None

Judgment

On 24 May 2006, Barry Parrish, a police officer, attended a single vehicle accident involving a truck on the Hume Highway near Bargo. Subsequently, a B Double semitrailer collided with a police car parked in advance of the accident site causing the police car to become airborne and strike the truck driver of the initial accident, which resulted in the death of the truck driver.
Mr Parrish avoided being hit by the car but subsequently suffered a hernia, knee injuries and psychological trauma from the event. Mr Parrish had surgery in June 2006 and remained off work until November 2006. He had further surgery on his knees in 2008, 2009 and 2011 and had other operations in 2010 and 2012. He received workers’ compensation benefits in respect of the incident and other incidents.
Between February 2007 and 17 February 2011, the date when he was medically discharged from the New South Wales Police Force, Mr Parrish had various periods off work. He has not worked in any capacity since August 2008. Mr Parrish, in his own affidavit and by other affidavits including his solicitor’s, gave a detailed account of his circumstances, injuries, operations and legal advice in the period until 18 September 2013, the date he gave an explanation for his delay in serving a personal injury claim form. The personal injury claim form was served on about 5 November 2012.
Proceedings for damages for negligence were commenced on 29 April 2014 against the driver and owner of the semitrailer (“Olympic Roadways”). The defendants, Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd and Rodney Broome, filed a notice of motion on 4 June 2014 seeking the following orders:

“1 That the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to Section 73(5) of the

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 Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 157
Case: [2015] NSWDC 157
Decision Date: 28 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Parrish, who sought to continue motor accident compensation proceedings against Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on delays in both making the claim and commencing the proceedings, with the defendant arguing that Parrish had not provided a satisfactory explanation for these delays. The court was required to determine whether Parrish had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for these delays and whether a letter of advice had been received by Parrish, which could potentially justify the delays.

The court examined the statutory requirements under the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, particularly section 109, which allows for the continuation of proceedings despite delays if a satisfactory explanation is provided. The court assessed the evidence presented regarding the delays and the circumstances surrounding the receipt of legal advice by Parrish. It was noted that Parrish had provided a detailed explanation for the delays and had demonstrated that a letter of advice had been received, which contributed to the delay in proceeding with the claim.

The court concluded that Parrish had provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delays and that the receipt of the letter of advice was a significant factor. The court granted Parrish leave to continue the proceedings under section 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. The court also ordered that the costs of the notices of motion be included in the costs of the proceedings and dismissed the notices of motion otherwise. The case was listed for further directions on 5 February 2015.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Plaintiff be granted leave to continue these proceedings pursuant to s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.

(2) Costs of the notices of motion be costs in the proceedings.

(3) The notices of motion be otherwise dismissed.

(4) List for directions on Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 9.30am before the Judicial Registrar.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Parrish v Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 157
Hearing dates:	23 January 2015
Date of orders:	28 January 2015
Decision date:	28 January 2015
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	P Taylor SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) Plaintiff be granted leave to continue these proceedings pursuant to s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999. (2) Costs of the notices of motion be costs in the proceedings. (3) The notices of motion be otherwise dismissed. (4) List for directions on Thursday, 5 February 2015 at 9.30am before the Judicial Registrar.
Catchwords:	MOTOR ACCIDENTS COMPENSATION – delay in making claim and commencing proceedings – full and satisfactory explanation for delays – whether letter of advice received by plaintiff
Legislation Cited:	Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, s 66, s 73, s 109
Cases Cited:	Afarin v Excelior Pty Ltd [2013] NSWDC 65 Holt v Wynter (2000) 49 NSWLR 128 Ly v Mukdassi [2013] NSWDC 257 Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Barry Robert Parrish (plaintiff) Olympic Roadways Pty Ltd (first defendant) Rodney Broome (second defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr D-L Del Monte (plaintiff) Ds: Mr J Turnbull (defendants) Solicitors: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (plaintiff) Holman Webb Lawyers (defendants)
File Number(s):	2014/127936
Publication restriction:	None