NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Walter v State of New South Wales [2000] NSWSC 237 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20221/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 March 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 March 2000
PARTIES : Patricia Anne Walter (Plaintiff) The State of New South Wales (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J
COUNSEL : Ms Dixie Coulton - For plaintiff Mr Greg Laughton - For defendant I V Knight State Crown Solicitor 60 - 70 Elizabeth Street SYDNEY N S W 2000 SOLICITORS :
George Sten & Co 359 Chapel Road BANKSTOWN N S W 2200 CATCHWORDS : Extension of time for bringing action - Gateway, bar - Discretion - Principles for exercise of discretion - Just and reasonable - Fair trial of action - Prejudice - factors to consider - Public interest - Equitable claim - Laches - Amendment Limitation Act 1969, s.14, s.23, s.60G; s.60I Child Welfare Act, 1939 ss5, 9, 10, 23, 28, 158 LEGISLATION CITED : Children (Care and Protection) Act, 1987 Claims Against the Government and Crown Suits Act, 1912, s.4 Crown Proceedings Act, 1988, s.9 Supreme Court Rules Part 15 R 22; Part 20 R 2 Commonwealth v McLean (1997) 41 NSWLR 389 Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Sydney City Council v Zegarac (1998) 43 NSWLR 195 at 199-200 Cowie v State Electricity Commission (Vic) (1964) VR 788 at 793 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (supra at 551) Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 at 532 Johnson v DOCS (1999) NSWSC 1156 (paras 88,100) CASES CITED : TC v State of New South Wales (Supreme Court of New South Wales, unreported, 11 February 1999) Williams v The Minister (1994) 35 NSWLR 497 Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 at 603 Lamont v Wyong Shire Council (New South Wales Supreme Court, unreported, 13 December 1991) Main Developments Pty Ltd v Rockdale Municipal Council (1992) 79 LGERA 30 O'Grady v Botany Wools (Aust) (1964) SR 359 at 364 Boyns v Lackey (1958) 58 SR (NSW) 395 Life Assurance of Scotland v Siddal (1861) 45 ER 800 at 806 Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR 5PC 221 at 239-240 DECISION : Extension of time refused.; Amendment to Statement of Claim refused.; No order as to costs.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate