Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

Stein v Ryden [2022] NSWCA 212

It was unnecessary for the applicant, whose unchallenged evidence established she was unaware of limitation periods and relied upon her solicitors, to adduce further evidence from each solicitor to meet the requirement of a 'full and satisfactory explanation' for delay under s 109(3)(a) of the MACA. The focus is the claimant's state of mind and actions, and her affidavit evidence sufficed, making the primary judge's contrary requirement an error.

Parties
Applicant: Annemie Nathalie Stein; Respondent: Sten Patrick Ryden
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From District Court; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determined Concurrently
Outcome
Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time, Explanation for Delay Under S 109 of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw), Evidentiary Requirements for 'full and Satisfactory Explanation', Personal Injury Commission and Claims Assessment and Resolution Service Processes
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Motor Accidents Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time Explanation for Delay Under S 109 of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (nsw) Evidentiary Requirements for 'full and Satisfactory Explanation' Personal Injury Commission and Claims Assessment and Resolution Service Processes

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Annemie Nathalie Stein

Applicant

Sten Patrick Ryden

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From District Court; Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determined Concurrently

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant provided a 'full and satisfactory explanation' for delay under s 109(3)(a) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether evidence from all former solicitors was required to show a 'full and satisfactory explanation'
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge erred in requiring further solicitor evidence

Ratio Decidendi

It was unnecessary for the applicant, whose unchallenged evidence established she was unaware of limitation periods and relied upon her solicitors, to adduce further evidence from each solicitor to meet the requirement of a 'full and satisfactory explanation' for delay under s 109(3)(a) of the MACA. The focus is the claimant's state of mind and actions, and her affidavit evidence sufficed, making the primary judge's contrary requirement an error.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; leave to appeal granted

Orders

  • The applicant has leave to appeal.
  • The appeal is allowed.