Williams v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd

The applicant, Williams, sought an extension of time to commence proceedings against Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from an incident in which Williams sustained injuries while shopping at a Coles supermarket, allegedly due to the negligence of Coles. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central legal issue was whether the applicant was entitled to an extension of time to bring the proceedings, given that she had not done so within the limitation period prescribed by law. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the applicant's delay in bringing the action could be excused under the 'special circumstances' provision in the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, rule 56.02(3).

The court examined the criteria for establishing 'special circumstances', including the applicant's delay in bringing the proceedings and the reasons for that delay. The applicant argued that she had not commenced the action sooner because she was unaware of the extent of her injuries until a Medical Panel determined that she had suffered a 'significant injury'. The court noted that the threshold for what constituted a'significant injury' was relevant to the applicant's entitlement to compensation and had been defined by the Wrongs Act 1958 at the time of the incident. However, the Wrongs Amendment Act 2015 had subsequently altered the definition of 'significant injury', leading to the question of whether this amendment applied retrospectively. The court concluded that the amendment did not apply retrospectively and that the threshold as defined by the Wrongs Act 1958 at the time of the incident was applicable. The court found that the applicant's delay in bringing the action was not due to 'special circumstances', as she had not acted with reasonable diligence in ascertaining the extent of her injuries.

The court ultimately decided that the applicant was not entitled to an extension of time to bring the proceedings against Coles. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods and noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed. The court's decision underscores the need for plaintiffs to act promptly in bringing claims and to be aware of the legal thresholds and definitions that apply to their cases.