Mclaughlin v Burrows [2021] NSWCA 170

Mclaughlin v Burrows [2021] NSWCA 170

The Court found the applicant's evidence did not establish that he was incapable of or substantially impeded in managing his affairs within the meaning of the Limitation Act, thus the limitation periods were not suspended and all claims were statute-barred; leave to appeal and the appeal were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Scot George Mclaughlin; Respondent: David Wilfrid Burrows; Respondent: Roger John Downs; Respondent: David Laurance Potts; Respondent: Paul Dante Magagnino; Respondent: Peter John Chodat; Respondent: Mario Quintilliani; Respondent: Michael John Hatfield; Respondent: Michael Paul Mantel t/as Kells the Lawyers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory
Outcome
Leave to appeal dismissed; notice of appeal dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs of proceedings.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Workers Compensation, Limitation Periods, Summary Dismissal
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Workers Compensation Limitation Periods Summary Dismissal

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scot George Mclaughlin

Applicant

David Wilfrid Burrows

Respondent

Roger John Downs

Respondent

David Laurance Potts

Respondent

Paul Dante Magagnino

Respondent

Peter John Chodat

Respondent

Mario Quintilliani

Respondent

Michael John Hatfield

Respondent

Michael Paul Mantel t/as Kells the Lawyers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal; Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was under a 'disability' within the meaning of Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 52(1) such that limitation periods were suspended
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in summarily dismissing the applicant's claims as statute-barred
  3. 3 Whether the applicant received a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the applicant's evidence did not establish that he was incapable of or substantially impeded in managing his affairs within the meaning of the Limitation Act, thus the limitation periods were not suspended and all claims were statute-barred; leave to appeal and the appeal were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal dismissed; notice of appeal dismissed; applicant to pay respondents' costs of proceedings.

Orders

  • Dismiss the summons seeking leave to appeal in proceeding 2021/78037.
  • Dismiss the notice of appeal in proceeding 2020/364240.