HICKS and ANOR v EDSER [1996] NSWCA 246

HICKS and ANOR v EDSER [1996] NSWCA 246

The evidence, including unchallenged affidavit testimony, acceptance of the credibility of the respondent, and supporting medical reports, was sufficient for the trial judge to find that material facts regarding the respondent’s injuries were not within her means of knowledge prior to the expiration of the limitation period. Thus, the extension was rightly granted.

Parties
Appellant: Hicks; Respondent: Edser
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 April 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Decision Extending Limitation Period
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Negligence, Nervous Shock, Limitation Periods, Extension of Time
Tort Law Negligence Nervous Shock Limitation Periods Extension of Time

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hicks

Appellant

Edser

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From District Court Decision Extending Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge correctly determined that material facts of a decisive character were not within the respondent’s means of knowledge prior to the expiration of the limitation period under s58 Limitation Act 1969

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence, including unchallenged affidavit testimony, acceptance of the credibility of the respondent, and supporting medical reports, was sufficient for the trial judge to find that material facts regarding the respondent’s injuries were not within her means of knowledge prior to the expiration of the limitation period. Thus, the extension was rightly granted.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs