Norrish v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] NSWSC 828

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Norrish v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] NSWSC 828

HEARING DATE(S) : 3/8/05

JUDGMENT DATE : 26 August 2005

JUDGMENT OF : Bell J at 1

DECISION : Pursuant to s 60G(2) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) the limitation period for the cause of action in this proceeding is extended to the date on which the statement of claim was filed

LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1986) 1 86 CLR 541 Blyth v Commonwealth of Australia [2005] NSWSC 721 Commonwealth of Australia v Diston [2003] NSWCA 51 CRA Ltd v Martignago (1995) 39 NSWLR CASES CITED : Drayton Coal v Drain (unreported) Court of Appeal 22 August 1995 Harris v Commercial Minerals Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 1 Holt v Wynter [2000] NSWCA 143; 49 NSWLR 128 McLean v Sydney Water Corporation [2001] NSWCA 122

Russell Charles Norrish (Applicant) PARTIES : Commonwealth of Australia (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20746/01

J.L. Sharpe (Applicant) COUNSEL : S.A. Woods (Respondent)

Hollows Solocitors (Applicant) SOLICITORS : Blake Dawson Waldron (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

BELL J

Friday 26 August 2005

20746/01 Norrish v The Commonwealth of Australia

JUDGMENT 1 BELL J: This is an application brought pursuant to s 60G of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) that the limitation period for the cause of action pleaded in the statement of claim filed on 31 August 2001 be extended. 2 The applicant was a member of the crew of HMAS Melbourne on 10 February 1964 when it collided with HMAS Voyager, resulting in the loss of the destroyer and of eighty-two lives. 3 The applicant pleads that the collision was the result of negligence by the officers and/or crew of either the Melbourne or the Voyager or both. As the result of the collision the applicant claims that he suffered injury, loss and damage. 4 The respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia, opposes the extension of the limitation period. By its defence the Commonwealth admits that the applicant was serving on board the Melbourne at the time of the collision and admits certain of the particulars of negligence. It does not admit that the applicant suffered injury as the result of the collision. In the Commonwealth's submission it will suffer prejudice in defending the applicant's claim should he be permitted to pursue it so many years after the event.