Doughty v Hillier [2024] NSWSC 1220

Doughty v Hillier [2024] NSWSC 1220

The plaintiff's application fails because although she did not actually know of the required connection until July 2021, she ought, by the end of 2014 at the latest, to have become aware through reasonable steps, following clear advice from an alternative specialist (Dr Ow-Yang); she did not take reasonable steps such as seeking further advice. The application for extension was brought more than three years after she ought to have had knowledge. Prejudice to the defendant and the aims of limitation legislation further weigh against an extension.

Parties
Plaintiff: Vicki Maree Doughty; Defendant: Terrence Hillier
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Application for Extension of Limitation Period and Declarations of Disability, Judgment on Notice of Motion
Outcome
Plaintiff's application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Limitation Periods, Personal Injury Actions, Legal Disability, Discoverability of Cause of Action
Limitation Law Personal Injury Civil Procedure Extension of Limitation Periods Personal Injury Actions Legal Disability 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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vicki Maree Doughty

Plaintiff

Terrence Hillier

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Procedural Ruling / Application for Extension of Limitation Period and Declarations of Disability, Judgment on Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether limitation periods in respect of plaintiff's causes of action should be extended under s 60G(2) and/or s 62A(2) Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff was under a disability suspending relevant limitation periods under s 50F or s 52 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was, or ought to have been, aware of the connection between the injury and the defendant's acts or omissions for the purposes of extension provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's application fails because although she did not actually know of the required connection until July 2021, she ought, by the end of 2014 at the latest, to have become aware through reasonable steps, following clear advice from an alternative specialist (Dr Ow-Yang); she did not take reasonable steps such as seeking further advice. The application for extension was brought more than three years after she ought to have had knowledge. Prejudice to the defendant and the aims of limitation legislation further weigh against an extension.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's Further Amended Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.
  • Parties to submit agreed or competing short minutes of order within 14 days.