Ali v Woolworths Limited [2013] NSWDC 137

Ali v Woolworths Limited [2013] NSWDC 137

The notice of motion was dismissed as premature because no separate determination had been ordered in respect of the limitation question and the application was not properly treated as an application for an extension of time, a defendant's stay or dismissal application, or an ordered separate question. In any event, on the evidence then before the Court, the plaintiff had not shown that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain whether his injury was caused by the fault of Woolworths, because he gave no evidence that he told his previous solicitors that he was working on Woolworths' premises.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the Plaintiff Seeking That the Action Be Deemed Maintainable Under Ss 50 C and 50 D of the Limitation Act 1969
Outcome
Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; defendant's costs of the motion to be the defendant's costs in the proceedings; matter stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['discoverable Cause of Action' 'maintainability of Personal Injury Action' 'reasonable Steps to Ascertain Fault' 'separate Question Procedure' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury'] ['discoverable Cause of Action' 'maintainability of Personal Injury Action' 'reasonable Steps to Ascertain Fault' 'separate Question Procedure' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']

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 Personal Injury Proceedings / Interlocutory Notice of Motion by the Plaintiff Seeking That the Action Be Deemed Maintainable Under Ss 50 C and 50 D of the Limitation Act 1969

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's action against Woolworths was maintainable because it was brought within 3 years from the date on which the cause of action was discoverable by the plaintiff under ss 50C and 50D of the Limitation Act 1969." 'Whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that his injury was caused by the fault of Woolworths.' 'Whether the plaintiff took all reasonable steps to ascertain whether Woolworths was at fault for his injury.' "Whether the plaintiff's notice of motion was a procedurally appropriate means to determine the limitation issue."]

Ratio Decidendi

The notice of motion was dismissed as premature because no separate determination had been ordered in respect of the limitation question and the application was not properly treated as an application for an extension of time, a defendant's stay or dismissal application, or an ordered separate question. In any event, on the evidence then before the Court, the plaintiff had not shown that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain whether his injury was caused by the fault of Woolworths, because he gave no evidence that he told his previous solicitors that he was working on Woolworths' premises.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's notice of motion dismissed; defendant's costs of the motion to be the defendant's costs in the proceedings; matter stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the plaintiff's notice of motion (filed 31 May 2013)." "Defendant's costs of the motion be the defendant's costs in the proceedings." 'Stand over for directions on 18 July 2013 at 9.30am before the Judicial Registrar.']