Cartwright v Steve Watt Constructions P/L & Ors [2000] NSWSC 42

Cartwright v Steve Watt Constructions P/L & Ors [2000] NSWSC 42

Having considered the matters in s 60E(1)(a)-(h), including the approximately six month delay after expiry of the limitation period, the absence of demonstrated lost evidence, the fact that the proposed defendants had already been parties as cross defendants since 3 April 1998, the seriousness of the plaintiff's paraplegia, and the plaintiff's explanation for delay, the court was satisfied that the proposed defendants had not suffered significant prejudice and that it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period under ss 60C and 60E.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Proceedings Involving an Application to Extend the Limitation Period, Join Defendants and Amend the Statement of Claim / Notice of Motion Filed 26 November 1999
Outcome
Application granted; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
['extension of Limitation Period' 'joinder of Defendants' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'negligence, Nuisance or Breach of Duty for Personal Injury']
['civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions' 'personal Injury'] ['extension of Limitation Period' 'joinder of Defendants' 'amendment of Statement of Claim' 'negligence, Nuisance or Breach of Duty for Personal Injury']

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

Personal Injury Proceedings Involving an Application to Extend the Limitation Period, Join Defendants and Amend the Statement of Claim / Notice of Motion Filed 26 November 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was just and reasonable under ss 60C and 60E of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) to extend the limitation period against the proposed second and third defendants.' 'Whether leave should be granted to join the proposed second and third defendants.' 'Whether leave should be granted to amend the statement of claim to add the proposed second and third defendants.']

Ratio Decidendi

Having considered the matters in s 60E(1)(a)-(h), including the approximately six month delay after expiry of the limitation period, the absence of demonstrated lost evidence, the fact that the proposed defendants had already been parties as cross defendants since 3 April 1998, the seriousness of the plaintiff's paraplegia, and the plaintiff's explanation for delay, the court was satisfied that the proposed defendants had not suffered significant prejudice and that it was just and reasonable to extend the limitation period under ss 60C and 60E.

Court Disposition

Application granted; costs of the motion to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted for an extension of time within which to commence proceedings in this court for damages in respect of an accident which occurred on 22 May 1996, against the proposed second and third defendants up to and including 26 February 2000.' 'Leave is granted to the plaintiff to join Mark Lawler Pty...