F J WALKER LIMITED v WEBBER [1989] NSWCA 76

F J WALKER LIMITED v WEBBER [1989] NSWCA 76

The respondent did not know, nor could a reasonable person in his position have known, the 'extent' of his injury or that it would require surgical fusion and lead to probable permanent unfitness for work before the relevant limitation period. Thus, material facts of a decisive character were not within his means of knowledge prior to that date, justifying the extension of time.

Parties
Appellant: F J Walker Limited; Respondent: Webber
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Material Facts of a Decisive Character, Meaning of 'extent' of Injury, Application of Limitation Act 1969 S57, S58, Critique of Statutory Provisions
Limitations Personal Injury Law Reform Extension of Limitation Period Material Facts of a Decisive Character Meaning of 'extent' of Injury Application of Limitation Act 1969 S57, S58 Critique of Statutory Provisions

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F J Walker Limited

Appellant

Webber

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a reasonable person in the respondent's position would have known the nature and extent of the injury before expiration of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether material facts of a decisive character were within the respondent's means of knowledge before the relevant period
  3. 3 Appropriate interpretation of 'extent' of injury in Limitation Act 1969 s57, s58

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not know, nor could a reasonable person in his position have known, the 'extent' of his injury or that it would require surgical fusion and lead to probable permanent unfitness for work before the relevant limitation period. Thus, material facts of a decisive character were not within his means of knowledge prior to that date, justifying the extension of time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.