Port v Holloway & Anor [2001] NSWSC 952

Port v Holloway & Anor [2001] NSWSC 952

The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing that it was just and reasonable to extend time for the proposed claim against the first defendant because the expert material did not support a viable cause of action against him. The plaintiff did discharge the onus for the proposed claim against the second defendant because, although the case might have difficulties, the material did not show it was hopeless or that relief would be futile.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Summons Seeking Extension of Limitation Period Under S 60 C of the Limitation Act 1969 for Proposed Professional Medical Negligence Claim / Application Heard on 13 September 2001; Judgment Delivered on 26 October 2001
Outcome
Extension of limitation period refused as against the first defendant and granted as against the second defendant.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'viability of Proposed Cause of Action' 'alleged Failure to Diagnose Acromegaly' 'expert Medical Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'professional Negligence' 'medical Negligence'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'viability of Proposed Cause of Action' 'alleged Failure to Diagnose Acromegaly' 'expert Medical Evidence']

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

Summons Seeking Extension of Limitation Period Under S 60 C of the Limitation Act 1969 for Proposed Professional Medical Negligence Claim / Application Heard on 13 September 2001; Judgment Delivered on 26 October 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was just and reasonable under s 60C of the Limitation Act 1969 to extend the limitation period for the proposed claim against the first defendant.' 'Whether it was just and reasonable under s 60C of the Limitation Act 1969 to extend the limitation period for the proposed claim against the second defendant.' 'Whether granting relief would be futile because the material failed to disclose a viable cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing that it was just and reasonable to extend time for the proposed claim against the first defendant because the expert material did not support a viable cause of action against him. The plaintiff did discharge the onus for the proposed claim against the second defendant because, although the case might have difficulties, the material did not show it was hopeless or that relief would be futile.

Court Disposition

Extension of limitation period refused as against the first defendant and granted as against the second defendant.

Orders

  • ['The limitation period for the cause of action proposed to be brought against the second defendant is extended for a period of 14 days from 26 October 2001.' 'The plaintiff has leave to file a Statement of Claim within that time.' "The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs of the Summons." 'The costs of...