Steven Galea v AMP Capital Investors Limited and Glad Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 65

Steven Galea v AMP Capital Investors Limited and Glad Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2015] NSWDC 65

The defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known within the relevant periods that his injuries were caused by the fault of either defendant or were sufficiently serious to justify the bringing of an action. The plaintiff took all reasonable steps by instructing solicitors and was not in possession of key information or necessary legal advice within time. Therefore, the proceedings are not statute-barred under s50C and s50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Determination of Separate Question on Limitation Period Prior to Trial
Outcome
Separate question answered 'no' as to both defendants; action is not statute-barred.
Legal Topics
['limitation of Actions' 'slip and Fall' 'discoverability of Cause of Action']
['personal Injury Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['limitation of Actions' 'slip and Fall' 'discoverability of Cause of Action']

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 / Determination of Separate Question on Limitation Period Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's claims against each defendant are statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) due to commencement after the limitation period." "Whether the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the facts making the cause of action 'discoverable' within the meaning of s50C and s50D Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known within the relevant periods that his injuries were caused by the fault of either defendant or were sufficiently serious to justify the bringing of an action. The plaintiff took all reasonable steps by instructing solicitors and was not in possession of key information or necessary legal advice within time. Therefore, the proceedings are not statute-barred under s50C and s50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Separate question answered 'no' as to both defendants; action is not statute-barred.

Orders

  • ["The separate question is answered 'no' with respect to each defendant." 'The costs of the motion and the hearing of the separate question are to be the plaintiff’s costs in the cause.']