BULLER v BLACK [2003] NSWCA 45

BULLER v BLACK [2003] NSWCA 45

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because it was open to the District Court judge to be satisfied that the claimant did not have a satisfactory explanation for making the claim late. After leaving hospital the claimant delayed for about three months before engaging an investigator, then failed to hurry the investigator despite knowing of the six month time limit, and then gave at best leisurely attention to making the claim after receiving the investigator's report. Considering the whole period of delay and the statutory purpose of early claims, the judge was entitled to conclude that a reasonable person in the claimant's position would not have been justified in experiencing the same...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Motor Accident Damages Claim Involving Late Making of Claim Under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Dismissal of Proceedings Under S43 A(7), Heard Concurrently in the New South Wales Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed by majority.
Legal Topics
['late Motor Accident Claims' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation for Delay' 'six Month Claim Period' 'appellate Review of Normative Judgment']
['motor Accidents' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['late Motor Accident Claims' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation for Delay' 'six Month Claim Period' 'appellate Review of Normative Judgment']

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

Motor Accident Damages Claim Involving Late Making of Claim Under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From District Court Dismissal of Proceedings Under S43 A(7), Heard Concurrently in the New South Wales Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the claimant had a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in making a claim for damages under ss40(2) and 43A of the Motor Accidents Act 1988.' "Whether the District Court judge's satisfaction that the claimant did not have a satisfactory explanation for delay was open to him on the evidence." "Whether knowledge of the six month time limit and periods of inaction made the claimant's delay unjustified."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the appeal was dismissed because it was open to the District Court judge to be satisfied that the claimant did not have a satisfactory explanation for making the claim late. After leaving hospital the claimant delayed for about three months before engaging an investigator, then failed to hurry the investigator despite knowing of the six month time limit, and then gave at best leisurely attention to making the claim after receiving the investigator's report. Considering the whole period of delay and the statutory purpose of early claims, the judge was entitled to conclude that a reasonable person in the claimant's position would not have been justified in experiencing the same...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed by majority.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time for filing the summons claiming leave to appeal.' 'Grant leave to appeal and direct that the notice of appeal be filed within 7 days.' 'Dismiss the appeal.' "Appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the summons and the appeal."]