Smith v Reader

Smith v Reader involved a claim by the applicant against the respondent, alleging that the respondent's negligence caused her blindness. The applicant filed her claim beyond the three-year limitation period applicable to personal injury claims. The applicant argued that the limitation period should be extended because she only became aware of the material facts of decisive character, specifically a specialist report indicating the respondent's negligence, after the limitation period had expired.

The legal issues before the court included whether the specialist report constituted a material fact of decisive character and whether the applicant had unreasonably delayed in obtaining the necessary advice or information. The court also had to determine if the applicant could point to evidence establishing the right of action. The court found that the specialist report was indeed a material fact of decisive character, but held that the applicant had unreasonably delayed in obtaining it, particularly given her passive approach in allowing her lawyers months to secure the report. The court concluded that the applicant could not establish the right of action based on the evidence before it.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of the limitation period. It reasoned that the applicant had not acted reasonably in waiting for her lawyers to obtain the report, and that on all the evidence, it did not appear that she could establish a prima facie cause of action in negligence. The language of the relevant statute allowed the court to consider all evidence to determine whether it appeared that there was evidence to establish the cause of action. Since it did not, the application was dismissed.