DOWELL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v PAGE [1995] NSWCA 129

DOWELL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v PAGE [1995] NSWCA 129

The appeal was upheld on the basis that, prior to the expiration of the relevant limitation period, Ms Page was aware of the connection between her injury and the acts or omissions of Dowell, and the evidence did not establish she was unaware at the relevant times. Thus, an extension under the Limitation Act should not have been granted.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Dowell Australia Pty Ltd; 1st Respondent/opponent: Wendy Page; 2nd Respondent/opponent: Pilkington ACI Operations Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From District Court Decision on Extension of Limitation Period
Outcome
Appeal upheld; previous Orders set aside; Amended Notice of Motion dismissed; costs and certificate ordered.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Limitation Period Commencement, Continuing Negligence, Plaintiff's Knowledge of Injury, Amendment of Statement of Claim
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Time Limitation Period Commencement Continuing Negligence Plaintiff's Knowledge of Injury Amendment of Statement of Claim

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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dowell Australia Pty Ltd

Appellant/claimant

Wendy Page

1st Respondent/opponent

Pilkington ACI Operations Pty Ltd

2nd Respondent/opponent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From District Court Decision on Extension of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the limitation period for the plaintiff's claim had expired
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff was unaware of the connection between her injury and the acts or omissions of Dowell
  3. 3 Whether it was just and reasonable to grant extension of time under the Limitation Act 1969

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld on the basis that, prior to the expiration of the relevant limitation period, Ms Page was aware of the connection between her injury and the acts or omissions of Dowell, and the evidence did not establish she was unaware at the relevant times. Thus, an extension under the Limitation Act should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; previous Orders set aside; Amended Notice of Motion dismissed; costs and certificate ordered.

Orders

  • Leave granted to appeal against PJ Phelan DCJ's Orders of 22 April 1994.
  • Appeal upheld.