Under s 23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), the consequences to an applicant of refusing an extension of time (including the strength of the proposed cause of action and the extent of alleged injury) are relevant matters to be weighed in the synthesis, but are not dispositive and must be balanced against consequences to the respondent. A considered election to allow the limitation period to expire does not preclude an extension of time where the applicant's condition subsequently deteriorates such that a previously borderline claim becomes meritorious. The existence of extensive contemporaneous medical records may reduce the significance of presumptive prejudice arising from delay, as the histories recorded in those reports will be provable at trial regardless of whether medical witnesses retain independent recollection.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 15 later cases that cite this judgment.