Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1226

Al-Shennag v Statewide Roads Ltd & Anor [2006] NSWSC 1226

The plaintiff could not rely on ss56A or 50F of the Limitation Act 1969. On the evidence, despite medical problems and pressure from litigation, he was not shown to have been incapable of or substantially impeded for a continuous period of 28 days or more in managing his affairs in relation to the defamation cause of action. Objective evidence, including his commencement of the existing defamation proceedings, conduct of other proceedings, studies and preparation of court material, contradicted the assertion of disability. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceeding / Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of the Limitation Period and Leave in Substance to File an Amended Statement of Claim Adding Four Defendants
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Add Defendants After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'disability and Suspension of Limitation Period' 'impairment of Mental or Physical Condition' 'preliminary Discovery' 'separate Question Procedure']
['defamation' 'limitation of Actions' 'civil Procedure'] ['application to Add Defendants After Expiry of Limitation Period' 'disability and Suspension of Limitation Period' 'impairment of Mental or Physical Condition' 'preliminary Discovery' 'separate Question Procedure']

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

Defamation Proceeding / Notice of Motion Seeking Extension of the Limitation Period and Leave in Substance to File an Amended Statement of Claim Adding Four Defendants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether ss56A, 50F or 52 of the Limitation Act 1969 could assist the plaintiff in bringing defamation claims against proposed additional defendants after expiry of the applicable limitation period.' 'Whether the plaintiff was, for a continuous period of 28 days or more, incapable of or substantially impeded in managing his affairs in relation to the defamation cause of action by reason of disease or impairment of his mental or physical condition.' "Whether the evidence of the plaintiff's health, litigation activity and educational activity established a disability within s11(3) of the Limitation Act 1969."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff could not rely on ss56A or 50F of the Limitation Act 1969. On the evidence, despite medical problems and pressure from litigation, he was not shown to have been incapable of or substantially impeded for a continuous period of 28 days or more in managing his affairs in relation to the defamation cause of action. Objective evidence, including his commencement of the existing defamation proceedings, conduct of other proceedings, studies and preparation of court material, contradicted the assertion of disability. The notice of motion was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion filed on 5 September 2006 is dismissed.']