//
[2025] ACTSC 224
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-30
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Case Title: Gul v Blackburn Citation: [2025] ACTSC 224 Hearing Date: 30 May 2025 Decision Date: 30 May 2025 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: See [3]. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – motor vehicle accident – whether urgent need to commence proceedings – leave sought nunc pro tunc Legislation Cited: Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT) ss 258, 259 Parties: Zarshad Gul (Plaintiff) Jake Blackburn (First Defendant) AAMI Limited (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel B Jullienne (Plaintiff) I Molenkamp (Defendants) Solicitors Blumers Lawyers (Plaintiff) Moray & Agnew (Defendants) File Number: SC 114 of 2025 McCALLUM CJ: EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED)
These are proceedings for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the Territory on 3 April 2020. The application before the Court is an application for leave to commence the proceedings despite noncompliance with s 258 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT). The plaintiff also seeks an order dispensing with the requirement for a compulsory conference to occur before commencing proceedings pursuant to s 259 of the Act.
The reason for commencing the proceedings on the date on which they were commenced was that the limitation period expired that day, the originating claim having been filed on 2 April 2025 – one day shy of the five-year anniversary of the accident. The reason the proceedings were commenced was obviously to obviate the risk of expiration of the limitation period, but it was not possible or practicable for the parties to convene to hold a compulsory conference before that date and, accordingly, the orders sought are by consent. Plainly, it is appropriate to grant the relief sought in those circumstances. Orders
For those reasons, I make the following decision: (1) Leave is granted nunc pro tunc for the plaintiff to commence proceedings under s 79(1) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT). (2) The proceedings are stayed until the parties comply with the pre-Court procedures in Chapter 5 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2019 (ACT). (3) Liberty is granted to the parties to relist the matter on 7 days’ notice. (4) Costs are in the cause. (5) I stand the proceedings over to 7 July 2025 at 11:30am before the Registrar.
I certify that the preceding three [3] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of her Honour Chief Justice McCallum. Associate: Date:
Gul
Blackburn [2025] ACTSC 224