ATIKULLAH V. SEFTON [2001] NSWCA 385

Reported Decision : 53 NSWLR 574

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : ATIKULLAH V. SEFTON [2001] NSWCA 385 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40649/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 October 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 November 2001

PARTIES : Mohammed Atikullah - appellant Jo-Anne Sefton - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Sheller JA at 1; Hodgson JA at 2; Ipp AJA at 69

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT DC 470/00 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Rolfe DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Mr. J.D. Hislop QC with Mr. G.J. Bateman - appellant Mr. L. King SC with Mr. R.I. Goodridge - respondent SOLICITORS : Henry Davis York - appellant Firths - respondent CATCHWORDS : TORTS - Negligence - Motor accident - Requirements of Motor Accidents Act for co-operation before proceedings, provision of details, and time limits - Failure to give details of Griffiths v. Kerkemeyer claim - Whether proceedings could continue without such claim. D. LEGISLATION CITED : Motor Accidents Act 1988, ss.40, 48, 50A, 52. Hill v. Bolt (1992) 28 NSWLR 329 CASES CITED: Serhan v. Serhan, Court of Appeal, 5/8/96 Osman v. Singh, Court of Appeal, 20/10/96 Dandashli v. Dandashli, Court of Appeal, 16/12/96 DECISION : See par.68 of judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL C A 40649/00 DC 470/00 SHELLER JA HODGSON JA IPP AJA

Monday 5th November 2001 ATIKULLAH V. SEFTON

Judgment 1 SHELLER JA: I agree with the judgment of Hodgson JA as set out below. 2 HODGSON JA: On 4th August 2000, Rolfe DCJ dismissed a Notice of Motion brought by the appellant Mohammed Atikullah, in which the appellant sought orders that proceedings commenced by the respondent Jo-Anne Sefton against the appellant be dismissed by reason of the respondent's alleged failure to comply with the provisions of ss.48(3), 50A and 52(4) of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 ("the Act"). Apparently because of that decision, Rolfe DCJ did not deal with a Notice of Motion brought by the respondent and heard at the same time, by which the respondent sought leave to commence proceedings out of time pursuant to s.52(4) of the Act. 3 On 19th March 2001, leave was granted to the appellant to appeal from the dismissal of its Notice of Motion, and we are now dealing with that appeal.