Stein v Ryden

In *Stein v Ryden*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to commence proceedings in the District Court of NSW out of time, pursuant to section 109(1) of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999* (NSW). The applicant sought to appeal a decision of the primary judge who had refused to grant this leave.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in finding that the applicant had failed to provide a "full and satisfactory" explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings, as required by sections 66(2) and 109(3)(a) of the Act. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the evidence provided by the applicant's former legal advisors constituted a sufficient explanation for the delay.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the primary judge had erred in their assessment of the explanation for the delay. The court held that the evidence from the applicant's former legal advisors, detailing the reasons for the delay in issuing proceedings, was sufficient to satisfy the "full and satisfactory" explanation requirement. Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to commence proceedings in the District Court of NSW and set aside the previous orders refusing leave.