Shortland Electricity v O'Connor

Link copied
Case Copied 6 min read
CITATION: SHORTLAND ELECTRICITY v O'CONNOR & ORS [1999] NSWCA 87
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40808/97
HEARING DATE(S): 30 March 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
30 March 1999

PARTIES :
Shortland Electricity - A
Sharon O'Connor bhnf Brenda O'Connor - R1
Australian Telecommunications Commission - R2
Port Stephens Shire Council - R3
Hunter Water Corporation Ltd - R4
JUDGMENT OF: Sheller JA at 1; Beazley JA at 15; Fitzgerald JA at 16
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 11630/87
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Sidis DCJ
COUNSEL: M Ward - A
L King SC/P A Regattieri - R1
R2, R3, R4 - N/A
SOLICITORS: McLachlan Chilton - A
Jones Staff & Co - R1
Australian Government Solicitor - R2
Dexter Healey - R3
Moray & Agnew - R4
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM - ADDITION OF DEFENDANTS - WHETHER OUT OF TIME - OPERATION OF S52 OF LIMITATION ACT 1969 - POSTPONEMENT OF BAR DUE TO DISABILITY
ACTS CITED: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
DECISION: Dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
                            CA 40808/97
                            DC 11630/87
                                SHELLER JA
                                BEAZLEY JA
                                FITZGERALD JA

                            Tuesday, 30 March 1999

SHORTLAND ELECTRICITY v O’CONNOR
JUDGMENT

1 SHELLER JA: This is an appeal by leave from a decision of her Honour Sidis J of 28 October 1997. The plaintiff, Sharon O'Connor, who sued by her next friend, was born on 15 October 1972. When she was fourteen, on 15 November 1986 she was injured by reason, she alleged, of the negligence of various defendants when she fell on a footpath at Nelson Bay.
2 At the date of her injury, under the Limitation Act 1969 in its then form, the limitation period for her cause of action expired six years from the date it first accrued. On 15 May 1987 she began proceedings against Australian Telecommunications Commission. On 20 March 1992 she amended her statement of claim to add another defendant, the Port Stephens Shire Council.
3 On 11 October 1996 she further amended her statement of claim to add two defendants, the appellant, Shortland Electricity, and the Hunter Water Corporation.
4 The appellant filed a defence and then subsequently made an application by notice of motion to amend the notice of grounds of defence, or, alternatively, for the statement of claim to be dismissed in accordance with Part 26 of the Rules on the basis that such proceedings had not been commenced within the time required under s52 of the Limitation Act as amended. It was that application which Sidis DCJ was dealing with. Her Honour dismissed it and this appeal is brought from that dismissal.
5 So far as material to this appeal, the Limitation Act provided as follows:
“18A (1) This section applies to a cause of action, founded on negligence, nuisance or breach of duty, for damages for personal injury, but does not apply to:
        (a) a cause of action arising under the Compensation to Relatives Act 1897; or
            (b) a cause of…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shortland Electricity v O'Connor and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1999] NSWCA 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application to amend a statement of claim to add new defendants in proceedings commenced by Shortland Electricity against O'Connor. The primary dispute revolved around whether the proposed amendments, which sought to add new parties, were out of time and, if so, whether the operation of section 52 of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) could postpone the limitation period due to a disability. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the proposed defendants could be added to the proceedings outside the relevant limitation period, and if so, whether the court had the power to grant leave to amend the statement of claim to effect such joinder. This involved a consideration of the principles governing the addition of parties to existing proceedings, particularly where the limitation period has expired, and the application of section 52 of the *Limitation Act 1969* concerning the postponement of the limitation bar due to disability.

The Court of Appeal considered the interplay between the rules of court permitting the joinder of parties and the provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969*. It was held that the proposed defendants could not be added to the proceedings as the limitation period had expired and the conditions for postponing the bar under section 52 of the *Limitation Act 1969* were not met. The court applied established principles regarding the joinder of parties and the strictness with which limitation periods are applied, particularly when new defendants are sought to be introduced after the expiry of the statutory time limit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dismissed with costs

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.