Klein v Domus Pty Ltd [1963] HCA 54
An applicant seeking extension of time under s. 63(3) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1960 (NSW) must positively establish 'sufficient cause' or, taking all the circumstances into account, that it would be reasonable to grant the extension. The burden of proof is on the applicant; there is no presumption or prima facie entitlement to an extension. The appellate court will not interfere where the discretion has been properly exercised within statutory limits.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Limitation Period' 'discretionary Orders' "workers' Rights"]
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the exercise of discretion to refuse an extension of time for the appellant to bring common law proceedings under s. 63 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1960 (NSW) was in error" 'Whether a prima facie right to extension exists under s. 63' "Interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and 'reasonableness' under s. 63(3)"]
Ratio Decidendi
An applicant seeking extension of time under s. 63(3) of the Workers' Compensation Act, 1926-1960 (NSW) must positively establish 'sufficient cause' or, taking all the circumstances into account, that it would be reasonable to grant the extension. The burden of proof is on the applicant; there is no presumption or prima facie entitlement to an extension. The appellate court will not interfere where the discretion has been properly exercised within statutory limits.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['Appeal dismissed with costs.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment