Barlow, John Robert v Baxter, James Phillip [1998] FCA 858

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 1 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT BARLOW Applicant AND: JAMES PHILLIP BAXTER Respondent JUDGES: HIGGINS, DRUMMOND AND SACKVILLE JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 30 JUNE 1998 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is refused. 2. The applicant will pay the respondent's costs in relation to the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) AG 1 of 1998 CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) ) GENERAL DIVISION ) ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY BETWEEN: JOHN ROBERT BARLOW Applicant AND: JAMES PHILLIP BAXTER Respondent JUDGES: HIGGINS, DRUMMOND AND SACKVILLE JJ PLACE: CANBERRA DATE: 30 JUNE 1998 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT HIGGINS J:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision made by Crispin J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, delivered on 18 December 1997. The application itself was one for extension of the time within which to commence proceedings for damages arising out of injury to the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident occurring on 11 September 1987. That occurred in New South Wales. At that time the law of New South Wales precluded any action based on common law rights to pursue an action for damages for negligence. There had instead been substituted a right to make a claim on a non-fault basis under the then relevant Transcover legislation, as it was called.

2. That was abolished with effect from 1 July 1989 which restored, albeit with some restrictions, the right to claim damages for such accidents should negligence be established. His Honour has correctly set forth in the judgment the rules which govern the application of the limitation laws of New South Wales to the action which had been commenced in the Australian Capital Territory. It is from his Honour's decision to extend the time as requested, that the present applicant seeks leave to appeal. In relation to that application it must be demonstrated, in order for leave to be granted to the applicant, either that there is an identifiable error of law, which can be said to have vitiated the decision, or that the decision itself was so unreasonable as to bespeak such error.