Under s 60I(1)(a)(iii) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), a plaintiff's unawareness of industry standards or codes of good practice that the defendant should have followed (such as the inclusion of chemical warnings on product labels) constitutes unawareness of facts, not unawareness of legal conclusions, and satisfies the threshold requirement. When a plaintiff leads considerable evidence demonstrating no prejudice to the defendant from an extension, and the defendant calls no evidence of actual prejudice, the court cannot refuse the extension on the basis of speculative presumptive prejudice.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.