FRAME v DICKINSON [1997] NSWCA 113

FRAME v DICKINSON [1997] NSWCA 113

The Court found no error of principle by the primary judge, and that no miscarriage of discretion occurred; thus, leave to appeal should be refused.

Parties
Claimant: Frame; Defendant: Dickinson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision
Outcome
leave to appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Limitation Period, Principles for Extension Under Motor Accidents Act
Motor Accidents Limitation of Actions Extension of Time Limitation Period Principles for Extension Under Motor Accidents Act

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frame

Claimant

Dickinson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of the 3 year limitation period under s52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in principle in refusing extension

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no error of principle by the primary judge, and that no miscarriage of discretion occurred; thus, leave to appeal should be refused.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs