Under s 66(2) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW), the test of whether an explanation for delay is 'satisfactory' is found in the second sentence of the definition: whether a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have been justified in experiencing the same delay. A claimant who reasonably relies on professional advice, even if the solicitor's conduct was negligent, can provide a satisfactory explanation for delay without justifying the solicitor's conduct. The claimant bears the onus of providing the explanation and persuading the court it is full and satisfactory. The question of what characteristics are attributed to the 'reasonable person in the position of the claimant' (e.g., tender years, disability) was left open.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 20 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 20 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.