Storer v Water Board & Ors [2003] NSWSC 823

Storer v Water Board & Ors [2003] NSWSC 823

The plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in commencing proceedings. The obligation to fully explain the delay was not discharged, justifying the refusal of the application for leave under s 151D(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kevin Storer; First Defendant: Water Board; Second Defendant: Sydney Water Corporation; Third Defendant: Australian Water Technologies Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time / Determination of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed. Costs ordered against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Leave to Commence Proceedings, Limitation Periods, Delay in Bringing Action, Onus of Explanation
Personal Injury Employment Law Limitation of Actions Leave to Commence Proceedings Limitation Periods Delay in Bringing Action Onus of Explanation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Storer

Plaintiff

Water Board

First Defendant

Sydney Water Corporation

Second Defendant

Australian Water Technologies Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time / Determination of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 151D(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 after the expiry of the limitation period
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff has a viable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff has provided a satisfactory explanation for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in commencing proceedings. The obligation to fully explain the delay was not discharged, justifying the refusal of the application for leave under s 151D(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed. Costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.