Jones v Royal Hospital for Women [2001] NSWCA 410

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Jones v Royal Hospital for Women [2001] NSWCA 410 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA DC 4172 of 1993; CA 40498 of 1999 HEARING DATE(S) : 29/10/01 JUDGMENT DATE : 21 November 2001

Julie Jones (Appellant) PARTIES : Royal Hospital for Women (First Respondent) Dr Zipser (Second Respondent) JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Giles JA at 2; Mathews AJA at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT 4172/93 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Freeman DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : M Williams QC (Appellant) J Machonachie QC (Respondent) SOLICITORS : J Biady & Associates (Appellant) GIO Law Department (Respondents) CATCHWORDS : LIMITATIONS - appellant paraplegic since birth 38 years ago - claim against hospital where she was born and doctor who conducted delivery - 8 years since proceedings commenced - some medical records and potential witnesses apparently not available - limitation period not extended. LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969, s 60 CASES CITED: Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 at 532 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996-1997) 186 CLR 541 at 551 DECISION : Appeal dismissed with costs.

- 22 -THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL CA 40498/99 SHELLER JA GILES JA MATHEWS AJA

21 November 2001 Julie Jones v Royal Hospital for Women 1 SHELLER JA: I agree with Mathews AJA. 2 GILES JA: I agree with Mathews AJA. 3 MATHEWS AJA: This is an appeal against a District Court judge's refusal to extend the limitation period in which the appellant can bring proceedings for personal injuries sustained when she was born, 38 years ago. It is the second such appeal to this Court. Another District Court judge's refusal was the subject of an earlier appeal. That appeal was allowed on the basis that fresh evidence was available, and the matter was remitted for further determination by the District Court. On 4 June 1999 the application for an extension of time was again refused. The appellant appeals, by leave, from that decision. The sole issue on appeal is whether the discretion under s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 (the Act) was correctly exercised.