Mantas v Lebon [2018] NSWDC 195

Mantas v Lebon [2018] NSWDC 195

The plaintiff gave a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay because, until the CARS exemption on 25 August 2016, there was no procedural default and her complex economic loss claim was being slowly documented through professional advisers in circumstances caused by her unsophisticated and sloppy business records. A reasonable person in her position would have relied on those advisers and experienced the same delay. The later delay between the dismissed summons and the present summons was approximately 10 weeks and reasonable for considering the position and preparing a fresh application, and the further delay before hearing was attributable to the Court's processes. The defendant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Summons for Leave Under S 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to Commence Motor Accident Damages Proceedings Out of Time / Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings
Outcome
Application granted; plaintiff granted leave to commence proceedings arising from the motor accident; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons hearing on the ordinary basis unless another costs order is justified.
Legal Topics
['leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation for Delay' 'motor Accident Damages Claim' 'cars Process' 'economic Loss Evidence' 'costs of Summons']

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

Civil Summons for Leave Under S 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 to Commence Motor Accident Damages Proceedings Out of Time / Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings for damages arising from the motor accident under s 109(3)(a) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999.' 'Whether delays while the claim was being managed within the CARS process and while economic loss material was being gathered were justified.' 'Whether the delay between dismissal of an earlier summons on 25 August 2017 and filing the present summons on 2 November 2017 was satisfactorily explained.' "Whether the defendant should pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff gave a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay because, until the CARS exemption on 25 August 2016, there was no procedural default and her complex economic loss claim was being slowly documented through professional advisers in circumstances caused by her unsophisticated and sloppy business records. A reasonable person in her position would have relied on those advisers and experienced the same delay. The later delay between the dismissed summons and the present summons was approximately 10 weeks and reasonable for considering the position and preparing a fresh application, and the further delay before hearing was attributable to the Court's processes. The defendant...

Court Disposition

Application granted; plaintiff granted leave to commence proceedings arising from the motor accident; defendant ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the summons hearing on the ordinary basis unless another costs order is justified.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 109(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, the plaintiff has provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing these proceedings, and she is therefore granted leave to commence proceedings arising from a motor accident in which she was injured on 14 September 2011.'...