Kylee Sharee Willis v Dr. Ganesha Thambipillay & Greater Murray Area Health ServiceJason Edward George Willis v Dr. Ganesha Thambipillay & Greater Murray Area Health Service [2003] NSWSC 553

Kylee Sharee Willis v Dr. Ganesha Thambipillay & Greater Murray Area Health ServiceJason Edward George Willis v Dr. Ganesha Thambipillay & Greater Murray Area Health Service [2003] NSWSC 553

The plaintiffs affirmatively established that the justice of the case required an extension: their delay was adequately explained by the circumstances following their daughter's catastrophic illness and disability, they acted with reasonable despatch after obtaining legal advice, and the defendants produced no evidence of actual prejudice; presumed prejudice alone, without a rational evidentiary link to injustice or unreasonableness in the particular case, did not require refusal of the applications.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Applications for Extension of Limitation Period for Actions in Tort and Contract Claiming Damages for Nervous Shock / Hearing of Applications After Statements of Claim Were Filed
Outcome
Applications granted; limitation period extended to and including 27 September 2002; costs in the cause; liberty to all parties to apply on 24 hours' notice.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'nervous Shock' 'presumed Prejudice' 'actual Prejudice' 'just and Reasonable Extension of Time']
['limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury' 'medical Negligence' 'tort' 'contract'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'nervous Shock' 'presumed Prejudice' 'actual Prejudice' 'just and Reasonable Extension of Time']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications for Extension of Limitation Period for Actions in Tort and Contract Claiming Damages for Nervous Shock / Hearing of Applications After Statements of Claim Were Filed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was just and reasonable under sections 60C and 60E of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) to extend the limitation period for the plaintiffs' causes of action." 'Whether the plaintiffs adequately explained the delay in commencing proceedings after the causes of action accrued.' 'Whether presumed prejudice, without proof of actual prejudice, made it unjust and unreasonable to grant the applications.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs affirmatively established that the justice of the case required an extension: their delay was adequately explained by the circumstances following their daughter's catastrophic illness and disability, they acted with reasonable despatch after obtaining legal advice, and the defendants produced no evidence of actual prejudice; presumed prejudice alone, without a rational evidentiary link to injustice or unreasonableness in the particular case, did not require refusal of the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications granted; limitation period extended to and including 27 September 2002; costs in the cause; liberty to all parties to apply on 24 hours' notice.

Orders

  • ['The application is granted.' 'Order that the limitation period be extended to and including 27 September 2002.' 'Order that the costs of the application be costs in the cause.' "Grant liberty to all parties to apply on 24 hours' notice in writing, either by letter or by facsimile transmission."]