Star Aged Living Limited v Lee

In the case of Star Aged Living Limited v Lee, the respondent, who was employed as an Assistant in Nursing at an aged care facility managed by the appellant, claimed that she suffered a back injury due to the appellant's negligence. The respondent did not consult a lawyer until after the limitation period had expired. She sought an extension of the limitation period on the grounds that three material facts relating to her right of action were not within her knowledge until after the limitation period had expired. The primary judge granted the application, but the appellant appealed, arguing that the primary judge's findings on the material facts and the exercise of the discretion to extend the limitation period were incorrect.

The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge erred in finding that the three material facts were of a decisive character and whether the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to extend the limitation period. The court examined the evidence and the respondent's understanding of her injury and treatment, including her history of back injuries, surgeries, and WorkCover claims. The court also considered the respondent's lack of legal knowledge and her reliance on WorkCover payments.

The court found that the primary judge erred in concluding that the three material facts were of a decisive character. The court held that a reasonable person in the respondent's position, having taken appropriate advice, would not have regarded the facts as showing that an action would have a reasonable prospect of success and that the respondent ought to bring an action. The court also found that the primary judge erred in exercising the discretion to extend the limitation period, as the prejudice to the appellant outweighed the respondent's need for an extension. The court held that the respondent's claim could still be fairly litigated despite the delay.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the primary judge's orders, dismissed the respondent's application to extend the limitation period, and ordered the respondent to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal and of the proceedings below.