Andrew Goodman v Impact Hire Australia [2007] NSWDC 272

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: Andrew Goodman v Impact Hire Australia [2007] NSWDC 272

HEARING DATE(S): 12/10/2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 October 2007

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 12 October 2007

JURISDICTION: Civil

JUDGMENT OF: Phegan DCJ

DECISION: Extension of time granted ; Leave is granted to commence proceedings against the Nominal Defendant within 28 days; Plaintiff to pay Nominal Defendant's costs of Notice of Motion

CATCHWORDS: Third party motor vehicle insurance - Nominal Defendant - extension of limitation period

LEGISLATION CITED: Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999

CASES CITED: General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) 1964 112 CLR

PARTIES: Andrew Goodman v Impact Hire Australia Pty Limited and Nominal Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): 5350/06

COUNSEL: Mr A Stone (Applicant/Plaintiff) Mr B Smith (Respondent/Defendant)

SOLICITORS: White Barnes, Solicitors Sparke Helmore Solicitors

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time in which to bring proceedings against the Nominal Defendant, the third defendant in the proceedings.

2 The relevant background arises out of an injury which the plaintiff sustained while employed by the first defendant on 29 December 2003. The plaintiff was at the time engaged in setting up a roadside display sign which was attached to a trailer towed by one of the first defendant's vehicles. The sign was to be set up on the Warringah Freeway, on the northbound side near the Brook Street exit. At the point where the sign was to be set up the vehicle towing the trailer on which the sign was erected had come to a stop and the plaintiff was engaged in detaching the trailer from the rear of the vehicle. This required a number of steps, the last of which was to lift the trailer, with the assistance of a jockey wheel attached to the shaft at the front of the trailer, from the point at which it was attached to the vehicle in front. As he detached it, the plaintiff found that the trailer, which was a slight slope, began to run away from the rear of the vehicle. At this point the plaintiff attempted, ultimately successfully, but only with some considerable difficulty, to control the movement of the trailer by applying the handbrake. The case which is made against the defendants is that the handbrake was dangerously stiff and difficult to apply and, in his efforts to apply the brake, the plaintiff suffered a back injury which is the basis of his claim for damages.