//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1991] NSWCA 76
Court of Appeal (NSW)
1991-04-22
Samuels JA, Abadee J
Original judgment source is linked above.
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES - COURT OF APPEAL
Samuels JA. This is an application for expedition of an appeal from a judgment of Abadee J which deals with various problems arising under the Motor Accidents Act 1988, and concerns, in particular, I am told, ss 45, 72, 73, 79 and 147.
Prominent amongst these questions is the way in which interest should be assessed and awarded. Upon this point there is a difference of view between two of the judges of the Supreme court. I would think that I would be safe to assume that there is a large number of cases in the pipeline coming up for hearing and it is clearly a matter of importance that, so far as possible, problems of construction should be determined by a decision of the Court of Appeal and, it may be, of the High Court of Australia thereafter.
I think that there is a clear distinction to be drawn between the urgency of the issues arising in this case and the urgency issue advanced, for example, in Mortensen v State Crownin which I refused to make an order for expedition earlier this morning.
I think that the parties, because both support the application, have made a case for expedition and I will order that hearing of the appeal be expedited. I note an estimate of one day plus which I translate to one and a half days and I specially fix the hearing for 15 and 16 May. I order written submissions.
On the question of costs, I think that the ordinary order would be that the costs of this application be costs in the appeal. Counsel for the opponent has suggested that in view of the public interest which the questions generate and their importance in the interests of both parties, each of them should have the privilege of paying her or its own costs. However, I see no reason why I should depart from what I believe to be the ordinary order and I order that the costs of this application be costs in the appeal.
DELL
DALTON