PANAGIOTAKIS v PANAGIOTAKIS [1995] NSWCA 355

PANAGIOTAKIS v PANAGIOTAKIS [1995] NSWCA 355

The primary judge was entitled, on the material before him, to conclude that a full and satisfactory explanation had been given for non-compliance with the notification requirement; his decision was sustainable and not one with which the Court of Appeal should interfere.

Parties
Appellant: Panagiotakis; Respondent: Panagiotakis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
summons dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Notification to Police, Extension of Time, Sufficient Cause, Statutory Preconditions to Proceedings
Motor Vehicle Accidents Civil Procedure Notification to Police Extension of Time Sufficient Cause Statutory Preconditions to Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panagiotakis

Appellant

Panagiotakis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to notify police in accordance with s 42(1) Motor Accidents Act 1988 precluded proceedings
  2. 2 Whether a satisfactory explanation for the failure had been given under s 42(2) Motor Accidents Act 1988 or 'sufficient cause' shown under s 42(5)
  3. 3 Whether the primary judge's doubts as to credibility and subsequent disqualification were inconsistent with granting relief

Ratio Decidendi

The primary judge was entitled, on the material before him, to conclude that a full and satisfactory explanation had been given for non-compliance with the notification requirement; his decision was sustainable and not one with which the Court of Appeal should interfere.

Court Disposition

summons dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Opponent (respondent) must pay claimant's (appellant's) costs