HOBBS v COSTAIN AUSTRALIA LTD [1996] NSWCA 248

HOBBS v COSTAIN AUSTRALIA LTD [1996] NSWCA 248

The trial judge correctly interpreted and applied s 60I(1)(b) and the appellant failed to satisfy the necessary preconditions under s 60I(1)(a), so the application for extension of time was properly refused.

Parties
Appellant: Hobbs; Respondent: Costain Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Trial
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Extension of Time Under Limitation Act 1969 S 60 G, Industrial Deafness
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Time Under Limitation Act 1969 S 60 G Industrial Deafness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hobbs

Appellant

Costain Australia Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant satisfied the provisions of s 60I(1)(a) of the Limitation Act 1969 for extension of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge misapplied s 60I(1)(b) regarding the relevant 3-year period

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge correctly interpreted and applied s 60I(1)(b) and the appellant failed to satisfy the necessary preconditions under s 60I(1)(a), so the application for extension of time was properly refused.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal is dismissed with costs.