SUMESS PTY LTD v NOLAN [1997] NSWCA 299

SUMESS PTY LTD v NOLAN [1997] NSWCA 299

Although errors of principle were identified in the primary Judge’s approach, a re-exercise of discretion under the correct principles would have led to the same result: that an extension of time was justified and the applicant had not suffered significant additional prejudice. Therefore, leave to appeal should be refused.

Parties
Applicant: SUMESS PTY LTD; Respondent: Nolan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal
Outcome
leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Period, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Prejudice in Limitation Applications
Limitation of Actions Civil Procedure Extension of Limitation Period Exercise of Judicial Discretion Prejudice in Limitation Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUMESS PTY LTD

Applicant

Nolan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the primary Judge erred in the approach to the discretion to extend the limitation period under s 60C of the Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted despite identified errors of principle

Ratio Decidendi

Although errors of principle were identified in the primary Judge’s approach, a re-exercise of discretion under the correct principles would have led to the same result: that an extension of time was justified and the applicant had not suffered significant additional prejudice. Therefore, leave to appeal should be refused.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • summons dismissed with costs