Legal Research
Cases
Sparkes v Hylemit Pty Ltd

Sparkes v Hylemit Pty Ltd

Case [2016] VSC 453 12 August 2016

Limitation Periods

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2012 6098

PAUL DARREN SPARKES	Applicant
v
HYLEMIT PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	J FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	27 May and 2 June 2016
DATE OF RULING:	12 August 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Sparkes v Hylemit Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 453

---

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Personal injury – Application to bring claim for common law damages out of time – Substantial delay – Prejudice - Fair trial - Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23A – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P Sparkes appeared in person
For the Respondent	Mr R Stanley	Transport Accident Commission

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Mr Paul Sparkes seeks an extension of time (pursuant to s 23A of the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic)) (the Act) in which to bring a common law claim against his former employer Hylemit Pty Ltd (Hylemit).

The claim arises out of a transport accident in May 2002. Mr Sparkes was the driver of a truck which overturned on a minor road outside Shepparton.

The writ was issued over four years out of time and Hylemit says it is statute barred by s 5(1)(a) of the Act.

Mr Sparkes is now self-represented. He was previously represented by Clark Toop & Taylor (CTT) and subsequently Slater & Gordon (S & G), which acquired CTT.

For Mr Sparkes’ claim to proceed he must show that it is just and reasonable to extend time beyond the six years allowed by the statute. If he cannot do so, the limitation period stands, and his claim will be dismissed.

For the reasons which follow, I am not persuaded that an extension of time should be granted.

Background to this application

The accident occurred on 24 May 2002 at St James, a hamlet near Shepparton. The truck, which comprised a prime mover and natural gas trailer, overturned on a bend in the road.

As a result of the accident, Mr Sparkes suffered a range of physical and psychological injuries. His physical injuries were primarily to his knees. He underwent a number of surgical procedures in 2004 and 2005. The most recent surgery was to his right knee in 2011.

Mr Sparkes has not worked since the accident and is currently on a disability pension. Prior to that, he was in receipt of Centrelink payments.

In September 2003,[1] Mr Sparkes engaged Ms Patricia Toop of CTT to act for him in respect of the injuries sustained in the accident. At that time, he was receiving weekly payments of compensation. The firm worked primarily on his claim for impairment benefits.
[1]Transcript of Supreme Court hearing on 2 June 2016, 14 (‘Transcript’).

Between 2003 and 2008, Mr Sparkes lived at several different addresses: with his wife in Hampshire Crescent, at an address in Coliver Road, and for a while…

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 Sparkes v Hylemit Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sparkes v Hylemit Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 453
Case: [2016] VSC 453
Decision Date: 12 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Sparkes, filed a claim for damages against Hylemit Pty Ltd, alleging personal injury due to a defective product. The dispute centred on whether the claim could proceed despite a substantial delay in bringing the action, in light of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23A. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the significant delay in initiating the legal proceedings prejudiced the defendant's ability to conduct a fair trial, thereby warranting the refusal of an extension of time under section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). The court was also required to determine if the delay was substantial enough to affect the fairness of the trial.

The court analysed the extent of the delay and the reasons behind it, along with any potential prejudice to the defendant. It found that the plaintiff had delayed in bringing the action for several years without a satisfactory explanation, which constituted a substantial delay. The court also considered whether the delay would lead to a significant disadvantage for the defendant in defending the claim. The court concluded that the delay did not sufficiently prejudice the defendant's ability to conduct a fair trial, and therefore, the application to extend the time for bringing the claim was refused. The court emphasised that the delay, while notable, did not irreparably affect the fairness of the trial.

In light of the findings, the court determined that the application to bring the claim for common law damages out of time was not justified under section 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic). The court's decision was based on the balance of the factors considered, and it found that the plaintiff's delay did not constitute a substantial impediment to a fair trial. The court's ruling upheld the statutory limitation period for personal injury claims, ensuring that the law was applied consistently and fairly. The final orders of the court reflected the decision, dismissing the plaintiff's application and affirming the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for bringing claims.

Orders