Durrington v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWCC 165

Durrington v SAS Trustee Corporation [2001] NSWCC 165

The application received by the Court on 17 October 2000, although wrongly in form 1 and imperfectly drafted, sufficiently identified that it was an appeal against a decision of the SAS Trustee Corporation about a policeman and therefore in substance an appeal under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. In light of the Court's powers under the Rules and the overriding purpose in Pt I r 2A, it ought to be treated as having passed under the seal of the Court on 17 October 2000, so the proceedings were commenced within the six month limitation period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Police Regulation (superannuation) Act 1906 From a Decision of the SAS Trustee Corporation / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Respondent's Motion That the Appeal Was Statute Barred
Outcome
Respondent's motion dismissed; proceedings declared commenced on 17 October 2000; each party to pay its own costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['limitation Period for Commencement of Proceedings' 'filing and Sealing of Originating Process' 'dispensing With Compliance With Rules of Court' 'costs of Motion']
['workers Compensation' 'police Superannuation' 'civil Procedure'] ['limitation Period for Commencement of Proceedings' 'filing and Sealing of Originating Process' 'dispensing With Compliance With Rules of Court' 'costs of Motion']

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

Appeal Under the Police Regulation (superannuation) Act 1906 From a Decision of the SAS Trustee Corporation / Ex Tempore Judgment on the Respondent's Motion That the Appeal Was Statute Barred

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appeal was commenced within the six month limitation period under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906.' 'Whether the application for determination received by the Court on 17 October 2000, although in the wrong form and not sealed by the Registrar, should be treated as having passed under the seal of the Court on that day.' "Whether the respondent's limitation defence and motion should be dismissed." 'What costs order should be made on the motion.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application received by the Court on 17 October 2000, although wrongly in form 1 and imperfectly drafted, sufficiently identified that it was an appeal against a decision of the SAS Trustee Corporation about a policeman and therefore in substance an appeal under the Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906. In light of the Court's powers under the Rules and the overriding purpose in Pt I r 2A, it ought to be treated as having passed under the seal of the Court on 17 October 2000, so the proceedings were commenced within the six month limitation period.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion dismissed; proceedings declared commenced on 17 October 2000; each party to pay its own costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['Declared that the current proceedings were commenced by the appellant on 17 October 2000 when a document sufficient to identify the appeal was received by the Registrar.' 'Motion filed by the respondent on 18 May 2001 dismissed.' "Paragraph 1(a) of the respondent's answer filed on 1 February 2001 struck out."...