Legal Research
Cases
Ridgley v Oliver

Ridgley v Oliver

Case [2019] NSWSC 329 25 March 2019

Summary Judgment

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ridgley v Oliver [2019] NSWSC 329
Hearing dates: 25 March 2019
Decision date: 25 March 2019
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: R A Hulme J
Decision:
Statement of Claim dismissed.
Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs in the sum of $8800.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal — Dismissal of proceedings — proceedings brought out of time
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56, 98(4)
Customs Act 1901 (Cth) ss 225, 226
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 18A, 50C, 50D
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 15.12, 13.4(1), 14.28(1)
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552
Attorney General (NSW) v Markisic [2012] NSWSC 433
Auspine Limited v Australian Newsprint Mills Limited (1999) 93 FCR 1
Dougall v Melville [2017] NSWCA 309
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738
Jindal v Goel [2018] NSWSC 836
Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118
State of New South Wales v Radford (2010) 79 NSWLR 327
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Zaki v Better Buildings Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 1522
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Simon-Peter Ridgley, The Man (Plaintiff)
Geoffrey Steven Oliver (First Defendant)
Kenneth Burge (Second Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff (Self-represented)
Mr P Knowles (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Australian Government Solicitors

File Number(s): 2018/292863

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: This is a summary dismissal application by the two defendants in proceedings brought by Simon-Peter Ridgley (who has indicated a preference to be known as "the man").
In a statement of claim filed in this court on 25 September 2018 Mr Ridgley sought a sum of six million dollars "or portion thereof" as a result of events listed under a heading, "Particulars". To make clear some of the difficulties with the claim and the foundation for the defendant's application I will set out the entirety of the "particulars" verbatiim:

"1   The facts stated in this claim are true and correct
2   On 25/11/14 the defendant (herein wrongdoer) G Oliver called me on the telephone and threatened me. He wanted me to meet him at a police station and read me my rights. He claimed he suspected i , had committed a punishable offence.
3   On 27/11/14 i , sent a letter to wrongdoer instructing him not to contact me by telephone or email that is to communicated by letter only
3 [sic]   On 10/2/15 the wrongdoer called me on the phone and i , felt threatened so I called for witnesses to help me, they instructed the wrongdoer(s) to not contact me.
4   On 10/2/15 the wrongdoer(s) drove a car at high speed to chase me
5   On the 10/2/15 The wrongdoer(s) exited the car and chased me on foot through a park in Brunswick heads
6   On 10/2/15 i , continually tried to get away from the two wrongdoers and I yelled at them to get away from me 3 times
7   On 10/2/15 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 Ridgley v Oliver

Details

AGLC: Ridgley v Oliver [2019] NSWSC 329
Case: [2019] NSWSC 329
Decision Date: 25 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Ridgley sought to bring proceedings against Oliver for damages related to a motor vehicle accident. The dispute centred on the timeliness of the action, as Ridgley filed the claim well beyond the statutory limitation period. The court was tasked with determining whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed due to the untimeliness of the claim. The central legal issue was whether the court could exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period under the relevant statute, given that Ridgley had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing limitation periods and the principles that guide the exercise of discretion to extend such periods. It was noted that while the court has the authority to extend the limitation period in certain exceptional circumstances, such discretion is not to be exercised lightly. The court examined the evidence presented by Ridgley and concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of the limitation period. The court held that the proceedings were brought out of time and thus should be dismissed. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods to ensure finality and certainty in legal proceedings.

The court dismissed the proceedings brought by Ridgley against Oliver, finding that the action was brought beyond the statutory limitation period. No extension of time was granted due to the absence of exceptional circumstances. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and the cautious approach the court must take when considering applications for extensions. The dismissal of the proceedings was final, and no further action could be taken by Ridgley against Oliver in relation to the motor vehicle accident.

Orders