Storer v Water Board

In the case of Storer v Water Board, the plaintiff sought to commence proceedings against the defendant for damages resulting from an alleged breach of duty. The defendant, the Water Board, opposed the plaintiff's application on the basis that the plaintiff had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in bringing the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the central issue was whether the plaintiff had a viable cause of action and whether the explanation provided for the delay was adequate.

The court had to determine if the plaintiff had established a valid basis for their claim against the Water Board, as well as whether the delay in bringing the proceedings could be justified. This involved examining the circumstances that led to the delay and assessing whether the explanation provided was reasonable and satisfactory. The court emphasised that a grossly unsatisfactory explanation for delay, particularly if it involved a deliberate decision not to bring the proceedings earlier, would likely result in the application being dismissed.

In its judgment, the court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of providing a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in bringing the proceedings. The explanation given was deemed grossly unsatisfactory, and there was evidence that the decision to delay was deliberate. Consequently, the court concluded that the plaintiff's application to commence proceedings was unjustified and dismissed the application. The court emphasised that a viable cause of action alone is not sufficient if the delay is not adequately explained, especially when the delay is substantial and involves a deliberate decision.