{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

4 Instituting proceedings

Laa s 27k limitation period may be extended for any

Info iconThis preview shows pages 54–60. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LAA s 27K – Limitation period may be extended for any period that is just & reasonable. Factors to be taken into account in deciding whether to extend time are set out in s27L
Background image of page 54

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LAA s 27L(1) Court to have regard to all circumstances of case including the length of & reasons for delay extent to which D may be prejudiced extent to which the D made available to P means of ascertaining relevant facts duration of any disability/legal incapacity of the P on/ after the date of discoverability; time within which cause of action discoverable; extent to which P acted promptly & reasonably once they knew that D’s act or omission might be capable at that time of giving rise to an action for damages; the steps, if any, taken by P to obtain medical, legal or other expert advice
Background image of page 55
Factors to be considered in extending time (s. 27L) cont. (2) To avoid doubt, the circumstances referred to in subs(1) include the following- (a) whether the passage of time has prejudiced a fair trial of the claim; and (b) the nature and extent of the plaintiff's loss; and (c) the nature of the defendant's conduct.
Background image of page 56

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
S 23A (= new s 27K) case: Clark v McGuinness discretion to extend under s 23A requires applicant to show its case is a just and reasonable exception to the rule that the welfare of the state is best served by the applicable limitation period Court of Appeal held weight of prejudice against Clark too great & overturned County Court’s decision.
Background image of page 57
Clark v McGuinness Discretion to extend time requires applicant to show its case is a just and reasonable exception to the rule that the welfare of the state is best served by the applicable limitation period. Court of Appeal held prejudice against Clark too great and overturned County Court’s decision.
Background image of page 58

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Clark v McGuinness Warren CJ ‘In my view, the critical issue in this case is the operation of prejudice and how that factor (as reflected in s 23A(3)) is to be balanced against the other considerations enumerated in s 23A(3) that may predispose a court to support the respondent’s claim for an extension of time. In other words, is the prejudice to the appellant so significant as to outweigh any legitimate claims by the respondent and make their imposition unjust and unreasonable?’
Background image of page 59
In the exceptional cases (where s 27D does not apply) – use LAA s5(1A) 3 years for - Negligence Nuisance Breach of duty resulting in personal injury where damages claimed for a disease or disorder contracted by the plaintiff from date on which the person first knows— (a) that he has suffered those personal injuries; AND (b) that those personal injuries were caused by the act or omission of some person
Background image of page 60
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}