Yamazaki v Mustaca

The dispute between Yamazaki and Mustaca arose from a motor vehicle accident in Sydney, which occurred on 22 July 2014. The respondent, Mustaca, was subsequently served with a writ in October 2018, which was out of the statutory limitation period for personal injury claims. The respondent sought to have the proceeding dismissed on the basis of limitation. Yamazaki applied for an extension of time for the service of the writ, arguing that the delay was caused by the respondent's failure to provide a current address. The primary judge extended the limitation period, and Mustaca appealed to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed. The case now lies before the High Court on special leave.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge was correct to extend the limitation period, and if so, whether this constituted a question of principle warranting special leave to appeal. The central issue was the interpretation and application of section 35A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Yamazaki argued that the delay was not unreasonable, and the trial judge was correct to extend the limitation period. Mustaca contended that the trial judge erred in extending the limitation period, and this was a question of principle warranting special leave to appeal.

The court found that the delay in serving the writ was not unreasonable and that the trial judge was correct to extend the limitation period. The court held that there was no error in the primary judge's approach to the exercise of the discretion under section 35A of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The court also held that there was no question of principle warranting special leave to appeal, and dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made by the court.