Australia, July 14 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on June 13:

1. On 18 May 2016, the plaintiff was injured while working at a building site in Riverwood in New South Wales. The plaintiff alleges he was employed by the first defendant as a formworker but was placed at the construction site to work under the second defendant (a labour hire arrangement).

2. The first defendant was placed under administration in August 2016. On 3 March 2025, the plaintiff obtained leave under s 471D of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to bring proceedings against the first defendant.

3. By a notice of motion filed on 4 October 2024 the plaintiff seeks leave pursuant to s 151D of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (the WCA) to commence and maintain proceedings against the first defendant. The purpose of the proceedings is to recover work injury damages arising from the plaintiff's injuries.

4. The reason the plaintiff needs leave is because s 151D of the WCA imposes a three-year limitation period on the commencement of such proceedings. The section does however allow for the extension of the period with the leave of the court in which the proceedings are to be brought.

5. The first defendant opposed the granting of leave. The second defendant is not concerned with the notice of motion.

6. The plaintiff relied on the following affidavits:

1) Mr Martin Bell dated 12 November 2024 and 23 May 2025.

2) Mr Louis White dated 19 March 2025.

3) The plaintiff dated 23 May 2025.

7. Mr Bell is the plaintiff's solicitor. Mr White is a clerk in Mr Bell's office. Mr White's affidavit refers to the granting of leave, as described above, under the Corporations Act.

8. The first defendant relied on the affidavits of its solicitor, Mr Dennis Kim, dated 28 March 2024, 5 June 2025 and 6 June 2025 respectively. Mr Kim's client is the workers compensation insurance scheme agent for the first defendant, GIO Insurance.

9. In their respective written submissions, counsel for the opposing parties stated their summary of the necessary conditions for the granting of leave. Although expressed in different words the test outlined was the same. The plaintiff said that the essential elements to be considered were:

"1. An explanation for the delay.

2. The degree of any forensic prejudice to the defendant such that a fair trial (as distinct from a perfect trial) can occur.

3. There is an arguable or prime facie case; leave would not be given for a case without prospects."

10. The first defendant's summary was:

"1. There is a sufficient and acceptable explanation for each period of delay,

2. The plaintiff has a reasonable arguable claim of negligence against the defendant, and

3. The defendant would not suffer such prejudice as to render the trial unfair."

11. The first defendant, without any formal concession, did not wish to be heard on delay or 'arguable case'.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/1976265c578876c03d29dee3)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.