Mehmet v Candemir [2013] NSWSC 1897

Mehmet v Candemir [2013] NSWSC 1897

The plaintiff failed to provide both a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings, as required by s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, particularly given deliberate and informed decisions made not to pursue proceedings at two distinct intervals and absence of cogent evidence that legal advice relied on was seriously wrong or misconceived; unexplained periods of delay further render the explanation inadequate. Leave to commence proceedings out of time was refused.

Parties
Plaintiff: Menekshe Mehmet; 1st Defendant: Ahmet Candemir; 2nd Defendant: Anthony Matthew Franks; 3rd Defendant: Kevin Patrick Day
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time and Orders on Notices of Motion
Outcome
Statement of claim dismissed; leave to commence proceedings out of time refused.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings, Personal Injury, Competing Statutory Compensation Schemes, Objective Reasonableness Test, Thresholds for Damages
Limitation of Actions Motor Accidents Workers Compensation Limitation Periods Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings Personal Injury Competing Statutory Compensation Schemes Objective Reasonableness Test +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Menekshe Mehmet

Plaintiff

Ahmet Candemir

1st Defendant

Anthony Matthew Franks

2nd Defendant

Kevin Patrick Day

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Leave to Commence Proceedings Out of Time and Orders on Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff provided a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings under s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to commence proceedings out of time
  3. 3 Adequacy and completeness of explanations for delay across three periods

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff failed to provide both a full and satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings, as required by s 109 of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999, particularly given deliberate and informed decisions made not to pursue proceedings at two distinct intervals and absence of cogent evidence that legal advice relied on was seriously wrong or misconceived; unexplained periods of delay further render the explanation inadequate. Leave to commence proceedings out of time was refused.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim dismissed; leave to commence proceedings out of time refused.

Orders

  • The statement of claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the notices of motion of the second and third defendants dated 19 February 2013 as assessed or agreed.