R CORDINA AND SON PTY LTD v CULJAK [1992] NSWCA 194

R CORDINA AND SON PTY LTD v CULJAK

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY, HANDLEY and SHELLER JJA 28 April 1992 [1992] NSWCA 194

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — POWER TO EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD — EFFECT OF LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) ACT 1990 — NO POWER TO EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD FOR EXISTING CAUSES OF ACTION UNDER TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS IN CASES OF NON LATENT INJURY. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION PERIOD WHETHER INSURER ON RISK A NECESSARY PARTY. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — CHALLENGE TO SOLICITORS' RETAINER — NOT ENTERTAINED EXCEPT ON SUBSTANTIVE MOTION. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — power to extend limitation period — effect of Limitation (Amendment) Act 1990 — no power to extend limitation period for existing causes of action under transitional provisions in cases of nonlatent injury. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS — application for extension of limitation period — whether insurer on risk a necessary party. LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — challenge to solicitors' retainer — not entertained except on substantive motion. In 1986 the respondent sued the appellant for damages arising from injuries sustained at work in 1981 and 1983. Subsequently he applied for the limitation period to be extended in respect of earlier, nonlatent, injuries while working for the same employer in 1971 and 1976. The Judge followed Plumb y Electricity Commission of New South Wales and extended the limitation period. On appeal brought in the name of the employer by the insurer at risk in 1971: Held: (1) There was no power to extend the limitation period. Electricity Commission of New South Wales v Plumb (CA 28 April, 1992 followed). (2) Semble under s60G(2) the employer's liability insurer on risk on 1971 was a necessary party to the proceedings in its own right. (3) The Court refused to entertain a challenge to the retainer of the solicitors for the appellant in the absence of a substantive application brought for that purpose.