Ackland v The Commonwealth [2001] NSWSC 991

Ackland v The Commonwealth [2001] NSWSC 991

The plaintiff satisfied the court that, at the expiration of the limitation period, he was not aware of his psychiatric injury (PTSD), its connection to the collision, or its nature and extent, as required by s 60I(1)(a), and he became aware within the time stipulated in s 60I(1)(b). There is evidence to support his cause of action, and despite the lapse of time, there will be a fair trial and no significant prejudice will be suffered by the defendant. It is just and reasonable to grant the extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Extension of Time Application / Judgment on Application for Extension of Limitation Period
Outcome
Extension of time granted; costs reserved
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'limitation Periods' 'personal Injury – Psychiatric Illness' 'duty of Care – Employer']
['limitation of Actions' 'torts' 'personal Injury'] ['extension of Time' 'limitation Periods' 'personal Injury – Psychiatric Illness' 'duty of Care – Employer']

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

Extension of Time Application / Judgment on Application for Extension of Limitation Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff satisfies the requirements under sections 60G and 60I of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) for an extension of time to commence proceedings for personal injury resulting from the 1964 Voyager/Melbourne collision' 'Whether it is just and reasonable to extend the limitation period given the passage of time and possible prejudice to the defendant']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff satisfied the court that, at the expiration of the limitation period, he was not aware of his psychiatric injury (PTSD), its connection to the collision, or its nature and extent, as required by s 60I(1)(a), and he became aware within the time stipulated in s 60I(1)(b). There is evidence to support his cause of action, and despite the lapse of time, there will be a fair trial and no significant prejudice will be suffered by the defendant. It is just and reasonable to grant the extension.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; costs reserved

Orders

  • ['The plaintiff is granted an extension of time within which to commence proceedings in this court for damages in respect of an accident which occurred on 10 February 1964 up to and including 25 February 1999.' 'Costs are reserved.']