NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CITATION:
State of NSW v Elms [2008] NSWCA 157
FILE NUMBER(S):
40572/07
HEARING DATE(S):
18 June 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
18 June 2008
EX TEMPORE DATE:
18 June 2008
PARTIES:
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES (Claimant/Appellant)
Brian ELMS (Opponent/Respondent)
JUDGMENT OF:
Beazley JA Giles JA Hodgson JA
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
14607/06
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Harrison AsJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
13 August 2007
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:
Elms v State of NSW [2007] NSWSC 876
COUNSEL:
P MENZIES QC/ D MALLON (Claimant/Appellant)
B TOOMEY QC/ D J PRICE (Opponent/Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
McCabe Terrill Lawyers (Claimant/Appellant)
Phillip Sim & Associates (Opponent/Respondent)
CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION OF ACTION - Extension of time – Claim by police officer for psychological/psychiatric injury – Onus on plaintiff to show there can be an acceptably fair trial – Requirement to identify the issues to be tried – Need for reasonable clarity as negligence alleged against defendant – Onus to show there can be an acceptably fair trial not discharged in the absence of such clarity.
LEGISLATION CITED:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 18A, 60C, 60E
CATEGORY:
Principal judgment
CASES CITED:
State of New South Wales v Brennan [2004] NSWCA 206
Whybro v State of NSW [2006] NSWCA 324
TEXTS CITED:
DECISION:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) Notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days.
(3) Appeal allowed.
(4) Orders below set aside.
(5) Application remitted to the Common Law Division to be determined in accordance with these reasons.
(6) Opponent to pay the claimant’s costs of the application and appeal and have a suitor’s fund certificate if otherwise eligible.
(7) Opponent to pay the costs of the hearing before the Associate Judge.
JUDGMENT:
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40572/07
SC 14607/06BEAZLEY JA
GILES JA
HODGSON JA18 JUNE 2008
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v Brian ELMS
Judgment
BEAZLEY JA: The court is in a position to give judgment in the matter. I will ask Justice Hodgson to give the first judgment.
HODGSON JA: On 13 August 2007, Associate Justice Harrison decided an application brought by the opponent, who I will call the plaintiff, for an extension of time pursuant to s 60C(2) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) to file and serve a statement of claim against the claimant, which I will call the defendant. On that day, the Associate Judge made the following orders:
(1)The plaintiff is granted an extension of the limitation period from 1 January 1987 pursuant to ss 60C and 60E of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).
(2)A statement of claim is to be filed and served within 14 days.
(3)The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of the application.
It is common ground that more properly these orders should have been to extend the time for commencement of the proceedings to 20 November 2007, but nothing turns on this.
The defendant seeks leave to appeal from…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read State of NSW v Elms 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 157
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Associate Judge had erred in granting the extension of time. This required the court to consider the onus on a plaintiff seeking an extension of time to demonstrate that an "acceptably fair trial" could still be held, and specifically, whether the respondent had sufficiently identified the issues to be tried with reasonable clarity, particularly concerning the alleged negligence of the appellant.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the requirement for an "acceptably fair trial" necessitates a clear identification of the issues to be tried. In this instance, the court found that the respondent had not discharged the onus of showing that a fair trial could be held because the alleged negligence against the appellant was not articulated with sufficient clarity. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders below, and remitted the application to the Common Law Division for determination in accordance with its reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Notice of appeal to be filed within 14 days. (3) Appeal allowed. (4) Orders below set aside. (5) Application remitted to the Common Law Division to be determined in accordance with these reasons. (6) Opponent to pay the claimant's costs of the application and appeal and have a suitor's fund certificate if otherwise eligible. (7) Opponent to pay the costs of the hearing before the Associate Judge.
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.