Wilson v Rigg [2002] NSWCA 246

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : Wilson v Rigg [2002] NSWCA 246 revised - 12/08/2002 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40113/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 3 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 26 July 2002

PARTIES : Mark Robin Wilson - Appellant Jack Rigg - Respondent JUDGMENT OF : Giles JA at 1; Santow J at 60; Foster AJA at 61

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court LOWER COURT CL 20364/98 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Sperling J JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : D F Jackson QC & H W D Stowe - Appellant D Davies SC - Respondent SOLICITORS : Sweeney Waterford - Appellant Mallesons Stephen Jaques - Respondent CATCHWORDS : Limitations - motor vehicle accident - solicitor instructed - solicitor failed to commence proceedings within the time allowed under the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (date 1) - application for extension of time refused (date 2) - solicitor allegedly failed properly to conduct application - action against solicitor more than six years after date 1 but less than six years after date 2 - whether cause of action in relation to failure to commence proceedings statute barred - whether separate cause of action in relation to failure to properly conduct application. D. Agryropoulos v Layton [2002] NSWCA 183; Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd (1963) AC 758; Cheney & Wilson v Duncan [2001] NSWCA 197; Christopoulos v Angelos (1996) 41 NSWLR 700; The Commonwealth of Australia v Mewett (1977) 191 CLR 471; Doundoulakis v Antony Sdrinis & Co (1989) VR 781; Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539; CASES CITED: Registrar General v Cleaver (1996) 41 NSWLR 713; Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd (1983) QB 398; Sampson v Zucker (CA, 11 December 1996, unreported); Scarcella v Lettice (2000) 51 NSWLR 302; Scott v Echegaray (1991) Aust Tort Rep 81-120 at 69,133-4; Wardley Australia Ltd v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514; Warmsley v Cosentino [2001] NSWCA 403; Wilson v Rigg [2000] NSWSC 16. DECISION : (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Set aside Sperling J's decision of the question and the verdict and judgment for the defendant and the order for costs made on 7 February 2000; (3) Answer the qustion that the appellant's claim against the respondent was answered by the plea in para 6 of the defence so far as the appellant relied on a cause of action for negligence in failing to commence proceedings by 1 July 1992 but not otherwise; (4) Remit the matter to the Common Law Division for hearing and determination conformably with that answer and these reasons; (5) Make no order as to the costs of the appeal or of the decision of the separate question before Sperling J.