Defamation proceedings - Limitation of Actions Act 1974

In Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered for the first time the provision permitting extension of the limitation period for a defamation action under s32A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974.

Child sexual abuse and access to justice for civil claims: Time to reform the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)

In 2015, Victoria passed laws removing the time limit in which a survivor of child sexual abuse can commence a civil claim for personal injury. The law applies also to physical abuse, and to psychological injury arising from those forms of abuse. In 2016, New South Wales made almost identical legal reforms. These reforms were partly motivated by the recommendations of inquiries into institutional child abuse. Of particular relevance is that the Australian Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommended in 2015 that all States and Territories remove their time limits for civil claims. This presentation explores the problems with standard time limits when applied to child sexual abuse cases (whether occurring within or beyond institutions), the scientific, ethical and legal justifications for lifting the time limits, and solutions for future law reform.

Submission on NSW Attorney-General's Discussion Paper on Amendment of Limitation of Actions Act 1969 to remove time limit for civil claims for child abuse

The New South Wales Attorney-General and Justice Policy Division released a Discussion Paper about reform of the Limitation of Actions Act 1969. The key question was whether and how to amend the statute to better provide access to justice for civil claimants in child abuse cases. This submission draws on published literature and multidisciplinary research to support the Discussion Paper's Option A, namely, to abolish the time limit for civil claims for injuries in criminal child abuse cases, and for this to be made retrospective.

Statute bar remains firm

In Hall v Don Faulkner Motors Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 331 Mullins j considered some significant questions relating to the construction of s11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) as that provision relates to dependency claims.

Limitation of actions - Workcover Queensland Act 1996 s 308(2)

In Narayan v S-Pak Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 373 the court concluded that proceedings to which the Workcover (Queensland) Act 1996 applies must be commenced within 60 days after the compulsory conference required by s308(2) of the Act and there is no power in the court to extend the time for compliance.

Limitation of actions - medical negligence

In Christensen v Salter [2002] QDC 082 the District Court of Queensland considered some issues on the limitation period applying to claims arising out of a failed sterilisation procedure

Limitation of Actions - effect of admission of liability

The decision in Simpson v Lenton [2002] QDC 214 applied the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Lindsay v Smith [2002] 1 Qd R 610 and Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 QDR 495 in finding the second defendant, having admitted liability, was estopped from relying on the expiration of the limitation period.

Limitation of Actions - incorrect date of accident advised to solicitor

The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal in Cormie v Orchard [2003] QCA 236 involved consideration of whether the respondent solicitor was liable in negligence for failing to commence proceedings within the applicable limitation period in circumstances where the solicitor had relied on the advice as to the date of injury nominated incorrectly but unequivocally by the client.

Disclosure of documents and limitation of actions

This article considers the decisions in Stephan v NRMA Insurance Limited [2001]QDC 002 and Bertha v Dragut [2001] QDC 003

A concise treatise on the statute law of the limitation of actions. With an appendix of statutes, copious references to English and American cases, and to the French code, and a very full index.

Mode of access: Internet.

The law, without the advice of an attorney. Or, Every man his own counsellor. Containing the laws of Pennsylvania relative to bonds, promissory notes, deeds, mortgages, judgments, limitation of actions, leases by parol, property exempt from distress and levy, register and recorder, witnesses, jurors, and constables fees, education of poor children, interest, landlord and tenant, constables, innkeepers, livery stable keepers, mechanics' lien, stage drivers, carters, inland navigation, roads, bridges, fences, strays, swine, water courses, hunting &c. Together with a number of forms and other legal information useful to the farmer, mechanic, or man of business.

Mode of access: Internet.

Adverse possession and Crown Leasehold in Queensland

The decision of Eckford v Stanbroke Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [2012] QSC 48 ,although a decision refusing summary judgement raises a very important question of the ability to claim adverse possession of a pastoral lease issued in 1956 under the Land Act 1962 (Queensland).Division 5 of Part 6 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) which guarantees registered freehold title expressly deals with the right of adverse possession however, there is no such provision in the present Land Act 1994 unlike s 170 of the Crown Lands Act 1989(NSW) which expressly precludes claims for adverse possession of specified non freehold land. There is no mention of adverse possession in any version of the Queensland Land Acts and only s 6(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 makes it clear that “the right, title or interest of the Crown” in or to any land is not affected by any adverse possessor.It is against the background that the Court considered the right of an adverse possessor to a Crown lease.

PI claim clears the statute bar

In Hughes v Impulse Entertainment Pty Ltd & Workcover Queensland [2013] QDC 21 the plaintiff commenced a proceeding more than 60 days after the compulsory conference under the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The question to be determined was whether this meant the claim was statute-barred under that Act, even though the relevant limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) had not expired

Shareholder class actions - a critical analysis of the procedure under Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act

Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1974 (C’th) governs the class action procedure, which has been available in Australia since March 1992. The procedure was not popular amongst the shareholders until in the late 1990s, and since then the number of shareholder class actions has steadily increased. Many of these shareholder class actions settled before a final court hearing. This article critically examines the class action procedure and in doing so, it highlights the current issues that contribute to a rapid rise in shareholder class actions. The article calls for reform to the class action procedure. It identifies areas for reform in an attempt to improve the position of the group members so that they can receive a better outcome than what they can get under the current class action model.

Section 64 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) and the reluctant buyer

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Dunworth v Mirvac Qld Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 200 arose from unusual circumstances associated with the flood in Brisbane earlier this year. Maris Dunworth (‘the buyer’) agreed to purchase a ground floor residential apartment located beside the Brisbane River at Tennyson from Mirvac Queensland Pty Ltd (‘Mirvac’). The original date for completion was 12 May 2009. In earlier proceedings, the buyer had alleged that she had been induced to purchase the apartment by false, misleading and deceptive representations. This claim was dismissed and an order for specific performance was made with a new completion date of 8 February 2011...