Gardiner v Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWDC 122

Gardiner v Nominal Defendant [2006] NSWDC 122

The explanation provided by Mr Gardiner for both the purposes of ss 43(a) and 52(4) Motor Accidents Act 1988 was full and satisfactory, and it is probable that damages will exceed the statutory threshold. In the absence of prejudice preventing a fair trial, it is fair and just to extend time for commencement of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application
Outcome
leave granted to commence proceedings
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'full and Satisfactory Explanation' 'damages Threshold']

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

Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings / Ex Tempore Judgment on Application

  1. 1 ['whether the applicant provided a full and satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging the claim' 'whether likely damages would exceed the statutory threshold for commencing proceedings']

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation provided by Mr Gardiner for both the purposes of ss 43(a) and 52(4) Motor Accidents Act 1988 was full and satisfactory, and it is probable that damages will exceed the statutory threshold. In the absence of prejudice preventing a fair trial, it is fair and just to extend time for commencement of proceedings.

Court Disposition

leave granted to commence proceedings

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 52(4) Motor Accidents Act 1998, the applicant is granted leave to commence proceedings in respect of the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident on 5 July 1999.' 'A statement of claim is to be filed and served not later than twenty-eight days after it is agreed between the applicant and...