OSMAN v SINGH [1996] NSWCA 413

OSMAN v SINGH [1996] NSWCA 413

Rule Pt 24C r 8 cannot derogate from the force of section 52(1A) Motor Accidents Act 1988; failure to comply with section 52(1A) is a procedural bar which, once raised by the defendant, obliges the court to dismiss the claim regardless of the timing of the defendant's motion.

Parties
Applicant: URJ Osman; Respondent: Singh
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Time Limits for Commencement of Proceedings, Striking Out Actions for Procedural Non Compliance
Motor Accident Law Civil Procedure Time Limits for Commencement of Proceedings Striking Out Actions for Procedural Non Compliance

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

URJ Osman

Applicant

Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does District Court Rules Pt 24C r 8 preclude the defendant from moving to strike out a claim outside two months after service of statement of claim?
  2. 2 Is section 52(1A) Motor Accidents Act 1988 a procedural bar to commencing proceedings if time limits are not observed?

Ratio Decidendi

Rule Pt 24C r 8 cannot derogate from the force of section 52(1A) Motor Accidents Act 1988; failure to comply with section 52(1A) is a procedural bar which, once raised by the defendant, obliges the court to dismiss the claim regardless of the timing of the defendant's motion.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Each party to bear and pay its own costs of the proceedings