BLUESCOPE STEEL LIMITED v DE CAIRES; ABB EPT MANAGEMENT LIMITED v DE CAIRES & ANOR [2005] NSWCA 431

BLUESCOPE STEEL LIMITED v DE CAIRES; ABB EPT MANAGEMENT LIMITED v DE CAIRES & ANOR [2005] NSWCA 431

The primary judge made no reviewable House v The King error in considering the plaintiff's delay or alleged prejudice under s60E of the Limitation Act 1969. The claimants did not establish particular lost written records or evidentiary prejudice sufficient to show that a fair trial could not occur, and the fresh material supported the arguability of the plaintiff's claim. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Order Extending Time to Commence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'industrial Accident' 'prejudice From Delay' 'occupier Liability' 'workplace Injury']
['limitation of Actions' 'workers Compensation' 'personal Injury Negligence'] ['extension of Time' 'industrial Accident' 'prejudice From Delay' 'occupier Liability' 'workplace Injury']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal From District Court Order Extending Time to Commence Proceedings / Court of Appeal Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the primary judge erred in granting an extension of time under the Limitation Act 1969 after previously refusing an extension.' "Whether the primary judge erred in assessing the length of and reasons for the plaintiff's delay in commencing proceedings." 'Whether alleged prejudice from unavailable records, unidentified witnesses and impaired recollection required refusal of the extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge made no reviewable House v The King error in considering the plaintiff's delay or alleged prejudice under s60E of the Limitation Act 1969. The claimants did not establish particular lost written records or evidentiary prejudice sufficient to show that a fair trial could not occur, and the fresh material supported the arguability of the plaintiff's claim. Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused with costs.' 'The summons is dismissed with costs.']