Clinton Brilley v Presidential Security Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 284

Clinton Brilley v Presidential Security Services of Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWDC 284

The plaintiff was not under a 'disability' within the meaning of the Limitation Act during his incarceration as there was insufficient evidence he was substantially impeded in managing his affairs. Thus, the limitation period had expired before application to join the security guard. Even if that was incorrect, the plaintiff also failed to establish a prima facie case as required under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981; the evidence did not support granting leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and to Join Second Defendant
Outcome
Motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['limitation Periods' 'joinder of Parties' 'disability Under Limitation Law' 'felons (civil Proceedings) Act' "precondition for Felons' Civil Claims"]
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['limitation Periods' 'joinder of Parties' 'disability Under Limitation Law' 'felons (civil Proceedings) Act' "precondition for Felons' Civil Claims"]

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

Civil / Application for Leave to Amend Statement of Claim and to Join Second Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether plaintiff was under a 'disability' for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1969 due to incarceration" 'Whether limitation period for joining second defendant had expired' 'Whether plaintiff established prima facie case as required by Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not under a 'disability' within the meaning of the Limitation Act during his incarceration as there was insufficient evidence he was substantially impeded in managing his affairs. Thus, the limitation period had expired before application to join the security guard. Even if that was incorrect, the plaintiff also failed to establish a prima facie case as required under the Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981; the evidence did not support granting leave.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Motion dismissed' "Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the motion"]