Moylan & v the Nutrasweet Company & Ors

[2000] NSWCA 337

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Courts and Judges
2. › Judgments
3. › Duty to give reasons
4. › Adequacy of reasons
5. › Damages claim for personal injury
6. › Where dispute involves intellectual exchange between expert witnesses
7. › Where judgment largely consisted of parties' submissions
8. › Where delay in giving judgment
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Extension of limitation period
3. › Exercise of discretion
4. › Onus on applicant
5. › Whether 'just and reasonable' to grant extension
6. › Requirement to address prejudice arguments
7. › Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 60G, 60I
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Whether Court of Appeal should give directions as to form of new trial
4. › Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A(10)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Where defendants conceded to new trial during appeal
5. › Costs of appeal grounds not argued

Quick Take

Where a dispute involves an intellectual exchange between expert witnesses, a judge must enter into the issues canvassed and explain why one case is preferred over the other; merely copying or reciting submissions without analysis is inadequate. Delay in delivering judgment heightens the duty to provide thorough reasons. Under s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), the onus is on the applicant to establish that extension is just and reasonable, not on the defendant to show it should be refused. A respondent defending a judgment in its favour is not liable for indemnity costs merely because it concedes during the appeal that the judgment was inadequate, absent a Calderbank letter or offer to compromise.