Chantrill v Naum [2009] NSWDC 206

Chantrill v Naum [2009] NSWDC 206

The plaintiff's explanation for delay was not sufficiently satisfactory to justify, in the face of a delay of more than seven years, that it was just and reasonable to extend the time for commencement of proceedings. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
['limitation Periods' 'extension of Time' 'personal Injury' 'prejudice']
['civil Procedure'] ['limitation Periods' 'extension of Time' 'personal Injury' 'prejudice']

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

Civil Application / Application for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings' 'Whether the defendants would suffer prejudice as a result of the delay' 'Whether it is just and reasonable to extend the limitation period under s 60C of the Limitation Act 1969']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's explanation for delay was not sufficiently satisfactory to justify, in the face of a delay of more than seven years, that it was just and reasonable to extend the time for commencement of proceedings. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the application." 'The exhibits are returned.' 'The affidavits will be retained.']