Turagadamudamu v PMP Ltd

The parties to this appeal were Turagadamudamu (the applicant) and PMP Ltd (the respondent). The dispute concerned the applicant's claim for damages for personal injury, specifically whether proceedings could be validly commenced and an order made under section 60C of the *Limitations Act 1969* (NSW) after the expiry of both the primary and secondary limitation periods. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were: firstly, whether the filing of a notice of motion with an annexed statement of claim constituted the commencement of proceedings for the purposes of the *Limitations Act*; and secondly, whether an order could be made *nunc pro tunc* (as if from an earlier date) under section 60C of the *Limitations Act* after the expiry of the secondary limitation period. The court also considered whether section 68A of the *Limitations Act*, which requires the applicant to satisfy the court that the respondent will not be prejudiced by the late filing of proceedings, conferred a substantive right on the opposing party.

The Court of Appeal held that the filing of a notice of motion with a statement of claim annexed did not commence proceedings under the *Limitations Act*. It further determined that section 60C of the *Limitations Act* could not be invoked to make an order *nunc pro tunc* after the expiry of the secondary limitation period. The court reasoned that the statutory scheme contemplated the commencement of proceedings within the prescribed periods, and that section 68A did not confer a substantive right but rather a procedural safeguard.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal, but dismissed the appeal. The order for costs made by the trial judge was set aside, and it was noted that there would be no order as to costs in respect of the hearing at first instance or the appeal, meaning each party was to bear their own costs for both proceedings.