HAINES v HUDSON [1994] NSWCA 119

HAINES v HUDSON [1994] NSWCA 119

Applying the principle in Plum, the extension of the limitation period by Newman J was invalid; the appeal must be allowed and the order extending the period set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Haines; Respondent: Hudson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 February 1994
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Application of Precedent, Latent Injury
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Limitation Period Application of Precedent Latent Injury

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haines

Appellant

Hudson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of limitation period granted under Limitation Act 1969 s60G was invalid in light of Electricity Commission of New South Wales v Plum

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the principle in Plum, the extension of the limitation period by Newman J was invalid; the appeal must be allowed and the order extending the period set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order of Newman J dated 21 June 1991, extending the limitation period, set aside