Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 3)

In Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 3), the applicant, Sanda, sought an extension of the limitation period for his claim against the respondent, PTTEP. Sanda alleged that he had not become aware of the material facts supporting his claim until October 2015, well after the limitation period had expired. He commenced the principal proceeding within 12 months of this discovery but sought an extension of the limitation period for his claim.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the preconditions for granting an extension of the limitation period were satisfied, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit. The applicant argued that the extension was appropriate due to his late discovery of the critical facts and the timely initiation of the proceeding once he became aware of these facts. The respondent contested the application, arguing that the applicant’s evidence was unsatisfactory and that the prejudice caused by the delay outweighed the applicant’s reasons for the extension.

The court found that the applicant had discharged the onus of demonstrating that it would be just to extend the limitation period. The court accepted that Sanda’s late discovery of the material facts was a significant factor in favour of granting the extension. The court also noted that the applicant's prompt initiation of the proceeding after discovering these facts was a strong argument for the extension. Although the respondent raised concerns about the prejudice caused by the delay, the court concluded that the discretionary factors advanced by the applicant were sufficient to warrant an extension. The court ordered that the limitation period be extended to 4 August 2016 and directed the parties to submit written briefs on the question of costs.

The final orders included extending the limitation period for the applicant’s claim, directing the respondent to file written submissions on costs by a specified date, and requiring the applicant to do the same. The court also directed that the question of costs be determined on the papers, unless the parties opted for an oral hearing.