Carey v Hayedi [2001] NSWSC 589

Carey v Hayedi [2001] NSWSC 589

Leave was refused because, in the circumstances, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of justifying an extension of time. The limitation period had expired on 15 July 1996, the delay was long, the explanation was insufficient in several respects, and the delay caused significant prejudice, including witness...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time Under S 151 D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 / Summons Heard on 3 July 2001; Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application failed; Summons dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'delay' 'explanation for Delay' 'prejudice' 'viability of Cause of Action' 'fair Trial Considerations']
['workers Compensation' 'limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure'] ['leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time' 'delay' 'explanation for Delay' 'prejudice' 'viability of Cause of Action' 'fair Trial Considerations']

Source-derived case record

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

Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time Under S 151 D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 / Summons Heard on 3 July 2001; Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave under s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to commence proceedings against Hayedi Pty Limited out of time.' "Whether the plaintiff's delay, explanation for delay, prejudice to the defendant, viability of the proposed claim and fair trial considerations justified or opposed the grant of leave." 'Whether the potential joinder of Hayedi Pty Limited in related proceedings brought against Gough & Gilmour affected the exercise of discretion.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, in the circumstances, the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of justifying an extension of time. The limitation period had expired on 15 July 1996, the delay was long, the explanation was insufficient in several respects, and the delay caused significant prejudice, including witness recollection problems, loss of records and attribution difficulties. The court concluded that a fair trial was now unlikely.

Court Disposition

Application failed; Summons dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.' 'The Exhibits may be returned.']