COLORADO v HADEN ENGINEERING PTY LTD and ANOR [1995] NSWCA 85

COLORADO v HADEN ENGINEERING PTY LTD and ANOR [1995] NSWCA 85

The trial judge applied incorrect legal tests in determining the claimant's application for extension of time, failing to apply the High Court's interpretation of s60I of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Justice requires setting aside the interlocutory order and remitting the application to be determined by the correct law, as the principle of finality does not preclude such a remedy in interlocutory matters.

Parties
Claimant: Alfred Ronald Colorado; First Opponent: Haden Engineering Pty Ltd; Second Opponent: Matthew Hall Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application (leave to Appeal From District Court Order) / Court of Appeal Decision Granting Leave and Allowing Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, judgment below set aside, matter remitted for rehearing, costs to claimant and further orders on costs made.
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Periods, Noise Induced Hearing Loss, Interlocutory Judgments, Finality of Judgments
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Limitation Periods Noise Induced Hearing Loss Interlocutory Judgments Finality of Judgments

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Ronald Colorado

Claimant

Haden Engineering Pty Ltd

First Opponent

Matthew Hall Pty Ltd

Second Opponent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application (leave to Appeal From District Court Order) / Court of Appeal Decision Granting Leave and Allowing Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principle of finality applies to interlocutory applications under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied conditions for extension of time under s60I of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether there was a miscarriage of justice caused by the application of superseded legal principles

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge applied incorrect legal tests in determining the claimant's application for extension of time, failing to apply the High Court's interpretation of s60I of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Justice requires setting aside the interlocutory order and remitting the application to be determined by the correct law, as the principle of finality does not preclude such a remedy in interlocutory matters.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed, judgment below set aside, matter remitted for rehearing, costs to claimant and further orders on costs made.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal from the order of Herron DCJ of 25 February 1994.
  • Allow the appeal.