Stratton v Kairouz [2009] NSWDC 7

Stratton v Kairouz [2009] NSWDC 7

The Plaintiff gave a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay because a reasonable person in her position, affected by the Defendant's threats, prior psychological vulnerability, and the absence of advice that her former solicitor had ceased acting or that a limitation period had to be observed, would have been justified in experiencing the delay. Her likely damages exceeded the statutory threshold, and the Defendant did not establish prejudice. It was therefore just and reasonable to extend time to 7 August 2008.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Motor Accident Damages Claim / Notice of Motion Filed on 7 August 2008 Seeking an Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings Against the Defendant
Outcome
Plaintiff granted leave for an extension of time to commence her claim against the Defendant; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the motion.
Legal Topics
['application for Extension of Time' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation for Delay' 'delay Influenced by Threats and Intimidation' 'reliance on Former Solicitor' 'damages Threshold Under S 109(3)(b)' 'prejudice to Defendant']
['motor Accidents Compensation' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['application for Extension of Time' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation for Delay' 'delay Influenced by Threats and Intimidation' 'reliance on Former Solicitor' 'damages Threshold Under S 109(3)(b)' 'prejudice to Defendant']

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

Motor Accident Damages Claim / Notice of Motion Filed on 7 August 2008 Seeking an Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings Against the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Plaintiff provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay incurred' "The role and actions of the Plaintiff's former solicitor" 'Whether the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of s 109(3)(a) of the Act' 'Whether the Plaintiff satisfied the requirements of s 109(3)(b) of the Act' 'Whether there was prejudice to the Defendant if leave were granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff gave a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay because a reasonable person in her position, affected by the Defendant's threats, prior psychological vulnerability, and the absence of advice that her former solicitor had ceased acting or that a limitation period had to be observed, would have been justified in experiencing the delay. Her likely damages exceeded the statutory threshold, and the Defendant did not establish prejudice. It was therefore just and reasonable to extend time to 7 August 2008.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff granted leave for an extension of time to commence her claim against the Defendant; Plaintiff ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the motion.

Orders

  • ['The time for commencing proceedings be extended until 7 August 2008.' "The Plaintiff is to pay the Defendant's costs of the motion, such costs are not to become payable until after the conclusion of the proceedings."]