Wells v Mexted [2022] NSWDC 20

Wells v Mexted [2022] NSWDC 20

The plaintiff's claim was statute barred. She knew in 2012 that she had suffered injuries and that they were caused by the alleged conduct of the defendant, and she considered those injuries serious before 23 September 2015. In the circumstances, including her nursing experience, prior workers compensation experience, involvement in court proceedings, and access to lawyers, a reasonable person would have made enquiries about a civil claim. Retaining criminal defence lawyers without seeking advice about a civil claim was outside the scope of that retainer and did not constitute taking all reasonable steps. The cause of action was therefore discoverable before 23 September 2015, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Claim for Damages for Assault and Battery / Principal Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant.
Legal Topics
['discoverability of Cause of Action' 'knowledge of Occurrence and Cause of Injury' 'knowledge That Injury Sufficiently Serious to Justify Bringing Action' 'reasonable Steps to Ascertain Facts' 'assault and Battery Between Neighbours' 'self Defence' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages']
['limitations' 'negligence' 'torts' 'damages'] ['discoverability of Cause of Action' 'knowledge of Occurrence and Cause of Injury' 'knowledge That Injury Sufficiently Serious to Justify Bringing Action' 'reasonable Steps to Ascertain Facts' 'assault and Battery Between Neighbours' 'self Defence' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages']

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 Claim for Damages for Assault and Battery / Principal Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's claim was statute barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)." 'Whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known before 23 September 2015 that her injuries were sufficiently serious to justify bringing proceedings.' 'Whether retaining criminal defence lawyers without seeking civil advice amounted to taking reasonable steps for the purposes of s 50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).' 'Whether the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendant assaulted and battered her as alleged.' 'If liability were established, what damages would be appropriate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's claim was statute barred. She knew in 2012 that she had suffered injuries and that they were caused by the alleged conduct of the defendant, and she considered those injuries serious before 23 September 2015. In the circumstances, including her nursing experience, prior workers compensation experience, involvement in court proceedings, and access to lawyers, a reasonable person would have made enquiries about a civil claim. Retaining criminal defence lawyers without seeking advice about a civil claim was outside the scope of that retainer and did not constitute taking all reasonable steps. The cause of action was therefore discoverable before 23 September 2015, and the...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant.

Orders

  • ['Judgment for the Defendant.' "I order the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs as agreed or assessed. I grant liberty to the parties to apply to my associate within 14 days should any other costs order be sought."]