Smallwood v Broome

[2019] NSWDC 393

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Smallwood v Broome [2019] NSWDC 393

Hearing dates:

12 July 2019

Date of orders:

09 August 2019

Decision date:

09 August 2019

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Judge Levy SC

Decision:

1. Pursuant to s 109(1) of the MAC Act, the plaintiff is granted leave to institute and maintain these already commenced proceedings claiming damages as compensation for the injuries she sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 21 October 2011;

 

2. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the plaintiff’s notice of motion filed on 29 April 2019 on the ordinary basis unless otherwise ordered;

 

3. The exhibits may be returned;

 4. Liberty to apply on 7 days’ notice if further or other orders are required.

Catchwords:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – negligence – motor vehicle accident – claim for damages for alleged negligence – whether delay in commencing proceedings has been explained fully and satisfactorily and whether damages threshold stipulated by s 109(3)(b) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW) has been met

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), s 66, s 81, s 92, s 109

Cases Cited:

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 27
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541; [1996] HCA 25
Dijakovic v Perez [2015] NSWCA 174
Karambelas v Zakvic (No 2) [2014] NSWCA 433
Nowlan v Marsland Transport Pty Ltd (2001) NSWLR 116; [2001] NSWCA 346
Ren v Jiang [2014] NSWCA 1
Sinclair v Darwich [2010] NSWCA 195
Smith v Grant [2006] NSWCA 244
White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Harriet Smallwood (Plaintiff/Applicant)
David Broome (Defendant/Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Mr W Fitzsimmons (Plaintiff)
Mr B Wilson (Defendant)

  Solicitors:
Stacks Goudkamp (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2018/320224

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

Table of Contents

Contested notice of motion	[1] – [4]
Evidence relied upon by the parties	[5] – [9]
Accident circumstances and sequelae	[10] – [11]
Reasons for rulings made at the hearing	[12] – [22]
Refusal of defendant’s application to cross-examine deponents	[12] – [18]
Refusal of informal application by defendant for a split trial	[19] – [22]
Legislation	[23] – [25]
Applicable legal principles	[26] – [29]
Factual chronology of events	[30]
Facts emerging from affidavit evidence	[31] – [40]
Plaintiff’s affidavit	[32]
Plaintiff’s mother’s affidavit	[33] – [34]
Plaintiff’s solicitor’s affidavit	[35] – [39]
Defendant’s solicitor’s affidavit	[40]
Other relevant circumstances	[41] – [48]
Consideration	[49] – [61]
Whether proffered explanation is full	[50] – [55]
Whether proffered explanation is satisfactory	[56] – [58]
Whether s 109(3)(b) threshold is satisfied	[59] – [61]
Disposition	[62]
Costs	[63]
Orders	[64]

Contested notice of motion

1. These reasons concern the determination of a contested notice of motion filed on 29 April 2019, by the plaintiff, Ms Harriet Smallwood, now aged 24 years and a resident of the United Kingdom, in proceedings in which…