An application for an extension of time under limitation legislation (including s 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW)) should be refused if the effect of granting the extension would result in significant prejudice to the potential defendant. This is consistent with both Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor and Salido v Nominal Defendant. The five propositions derived from Salido (discretion exercised for purposes of the Act; whether fair and just to grant leave; onus on applicant; delay and explanation material; disadvantage to defendant material but not conclusive) remain the governing framework, with Brisbane South adding that the court must also consider whether a fair trial is possible. The question of whether significant prejudice is conclusive or merely highly material was not unanimously resolved, with Priestley JA dissenting on this point.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 132 later cases that cite this judgment.
7 of the 132 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.