JOHN LYSAGHT (AUST) LTD v BUTFIELD [1993] NSWCA 146

JOHN LYSAGHT (AUST) LTD v BUTFIELD [1993] NSWCA 146

The respondent failed to establish he was unaware, before the end of 1985, of the fact, nature, extent, or cause of his industrial deafness; s60F operates by reference to factual cause, not negligence. Therefore, the extension of the limitation period was not justified.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: John Lysaght (Aust) Ltd; Respondent: Butfield
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 1993
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Latency of Injury, Industrial Deafness
Limitation of Actions Personal Injury Extension of Limitation Period Latency of Injury Industrial Deafness

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Lysaght (Aust) Ltd

Appellant

Butfield

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was unaware of the fact, nature, extent, or cause of his industrial deafness before the limitation period expired for extension purposes under s60F of the Limitation Act 1969.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to establish he was unaware, before the end of 1985, of the fact, nature, extent, or cause of his industrial deafness; s60F operates by reference to factual cause, not negligence. Therefore, the extension of the limitation period was not justified.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Set aside the order extending the limitation period to 25 November 1992.