Pomare v Hogan (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 497

Pomare v Hogan (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 497

The plaintiff knew or ought to have known, prior to the relevant date (15 May 2014), the key facts making the second defendant at fault: namely, that the bull strayed onto the road, causing the injury, as a result of the gate being left or coming open, with the second defendant being responsible for the property and animals. This knowledge was sufficient for the running of time under s 50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), and the cause of action was discoverable by the plaintiff, thus statute-barred.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Principal Judgment / Determination of Separate Question Regarding Limitation Period
Outcome
Plaintiff's cause of action against the second defendant held statute-barred; adverse costs order against plaintiff
Legal Topics
['discoverability Limitation Period' 'civil Liability for Animals' 'personal Injury' 'fault' 'evidence and Onus of Proof']
['limitation of Actions' 'negligence'] ['discoverability Limitation Period' 'civil Liability for Animals' 'personal Injury' 'fault' 'evidence and Onus of Proof']

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

Principal Judgment / Determination of Separate Question Regarding Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known that his injuries were caused by the fault of the second defendant by the relevant date (15 May 2014) for limitation purposes under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 50C and 50D']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff knew or ought to have known, prior to the relevant date (15 May 2014), the key facts making the second defendant at fault: namely, that the bull strayed onto the road, causing the injury, as a result of the gate being left or coming open, with the second defendant being responsible for the property and animals. This knowledge was sufficient for the running of time under s 50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), and the cause of action was discoverable by the plaintiff, thus statute-barred.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's cause of action against the second defendant held statute-barred; adverse costs order against plaintiff

Orders

  • ["Answer to separate question is 'yes'—the plaintiff knew or ought to have known by 15 May 2014 of the fact that his injuries were caused by the fault of the second defendant." "Plaintiff to pay the second defendant's costs."]