Australia: Round-Up - Recent Limitation Decisions

Last Updated: 12 May 2009
Article by James McIntyre and Paul Baxter

This article reviews some recent Australian limitation decisions which considered issues of prejudice to potential defendants, delay by claimants or their solicitors and admissions of liability by insurers.

Limitation periods are a key feature of litigation and risk management processes. Statutory time limits impose a time frame for claimants to initiate proceedings against all relevant parties for tortious conduct within a prescribed time frame (usually three years for personal injury claims). The prescribed limitation period is intended to provide defendants with some reassurance that they will not have an indefinite period of exposure to claims against them. However, the courts have adopted interpretations of limitation statutes which seem to be overly generous to claimants. Ultimately, the outcome of any limitation issue will depend on the specific limitation statute being considered by the court and the particular circumstances of the case.

Lack of insurance and prejudice

Windsurf Holdings Pty Ltd v Leonard [2009] NSWCA 6

One of the key issues considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal was whether the fact that a potential defendant no longer had professional indemnity insurance gave rise to such significant prejudice that an application for an extension of the limitation period should be refused.

Justice Sackville noted that the provisions of the relevant limitation legislation create a discretion to order an extension of limitation period but do not create a presumptive right to an order extending the limitation period.

His Honour pointed out that once it was apparent that a proposed defendant would suffer significant prejudice due to the expiration of their professional indemnity insurance cover it was necessary to refuse the application to extend the limitation period for the purposes of an action against the proposed defendant. It was not open to regard the prejudice as simply one factor to be taken into account in assessing whether the proposed defendant could receive a fair trial.

Justice Sackville made the very relevant observation that 'for an individual to be forced to defend a major claim without the protection of insurance coverage that otherwise would have been available to that individual, had the claim been brought within the limitation period or shortly thereafter, is very obviously and, ordinarily, a very serious form of prejudice.'

This decision is heartening for defendants as the Court has not confined the concept of prejudice to the ability of a potential defendant to undertake relevant investigations but also the ability of the defendant to meet the significant costs associated with defending a negligence claim.

Further, the decision provides some reassurance to defendants that, while run-off insurance is prudent risk management, the absence of such cover will constitute significant prejudice when a court considers whether a limitation period should be extended against that defendant.

Solicitors' delay

Baker‑Morrison v New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 35

A claimant's guardian promptly instructed a solicitor after the claimant suffered personal injuries but the solicitor did not taken steps to commence proceedings before the expiry of the limitation period.

Section 50D of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) provided that a person ought to know of a fact at a particular time if the fact would have been ascertained by the person had they taken all reasonable steps before that time to ascertain the facts.

The New South Wales Court of Appeal noted that, in most circumstances, the step of instructing a solicitor will be sufficient for a prospective plaintiff to satisfy the element of taking 'all reasonable steps'.

The Court concluded that the expression 'ought to know' should be interpreted with reference only to what the plaintiff would have found out if they had taken all reasonable steps. The Court also noted that the use of the word 'would', as opposed to 'should' was inconsistent with any expectation that a plaintiff was required to take active steps to obtain these facts.

Given that there was no suggestion that the guardian should reasonably have taken any step which she did not take, the Court allowed an extension of the limitation period.

This decision indicates that, when interpreting legislation to consider the matters that a prospective plaintiff ought to have known at a particular point in time, in the absence of words imposing a positive obligation on plaintiffs to take steps to find out such information, the courts will adopt a generous interpretation of the legislation. Further, given the circumstances in which the appeal arose, the decision also illustrates the general reluctance of the courts to punish a plaintiff for delays attributable to their solicitors. However, while the courts seem prepared to adopt generous interpretations of such provisions, the provisions may not be interpreted to reward a prospective plaintiff's complete inertia.

Plaintiff's delay

Kaye v Hoffman [2009] TASSC 5

In this case, the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered whether the date of discoverability of a potential cause of action (for allegedly misdiagnosing the presence of a pituitary tumour) arose prior to November 1998 (when a different specialist advised her that she was not suffering from a pituitary tumour). The defendant had treated the plaintiff in 1994 and arranged various pathology tests and MRI scans.

The final MRI scan indicated there was no tumour. However, the plaintiff failed to comply with the defendant's request that she arrange a follow-up appointment with the defendant to discuss the results of the tests and scans. Section 38A of the Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) provides that a person who has a cause of action may apply to a judge for an extension of the period of limitation up to three years, commencing on the date of discoverability.

The plaintiff submitted that the 'date of discoverability' was 26 November 1998, when a different endocrinologist advised her that she had never suffered from a pituitary tumour.

The Court noted that the plaintiff bore the onus of proving that the date of discoverability was not earlier than three years before 23 November 2001, the date on which proceedings were commenced. The Court noted that two issues needed to be considered:

  • What enquiries or other steps ought to have been made or taken by the plaintiff?
  • If she had made those enquiries or taken those steps, would she have found out earlier than November 1998 that she had not suffered from a tumour?

The Court found that the breakdown in communications between the plaintiff and the defendant resulted from the plaintiff's failure to return to see the defendant in accordance with the advice given.

Consequently, the Court concluded that if the plaintiff had continued to consult the defendant, she may have learned much earlier than 1998 that she was not suffering from a pituitary tumour. Further, the Court rejected the plaintiff's submission that even if she had continued to consult the defendant, the defendant would have persisted with the misdiagnosis.

The facts in this case differ from those considered by the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Baker-Morrison as the delay in the commencement of proceedings related to the conduct of the plaintiff rather than her solicitors. However, the decision should provide some reassurance to professionals (particularly medical professionals) and their insurers that the courts may be reluctant to allow a plaintiff to take advantage of their own inactivity to secure an extension of a limitation period.

Potential impact of statutory pre-litigation procedures

Casey v Alcock [2009] ACTCA 1

A number of Australian jurisdictions have statutory frameworks setting out pre-litigation procedures for personal injury claims. This decision illustrates the impact that compliance with these pre-litigation procedures may have on limitation issues.

In this case, the ACT Court of Appeal considered whether a letter from the defendant's insurer to the plaintiff's solicitors admitting liability created a new starting point for the calculation of the limitation period. The letter was written to satisfy the requirements of section 61(1)(b) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) which requires a respondent to a personal injuries claim to provide a claimant with written notice stating whether liability is admitted or denied, and the extent of any contributory negligence claimed by the respondent.

Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) provides that if, during the limitation period, a person against whom the cause of action lies confirms the cause of action, the time running before the date of the confirmation does not count in the calculation of the limitation period for an action.

The plaintiff had been injured in a motor vehicle accident on 20 December 2003 and lodged a personal injury claim form with the defendant's insurer on or about 30 January 2004. The insurer wrote to the plaintiff's solicitors (in compliance with section 61 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act) and admitted liability for the accident. The plaintiff commenced proceedings on 1 May 2007, three and a half years after the accident and the defendant raised a limitation point in its defence.

The defendant submitted that if an admission made to comply with an obligation under section 61 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act could constitute an acknowledgment under section 32 of the Limitation Act, it would be a result that was unintended by the legislature and would be contrary to the legislature's intention in enacting amendments to create a strict three year time limit for the commencement of personal injuries actions.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and noted the following matters:

  • Section 32 was not, in form, an extension of time provision.
  • The acknowledgement for the purposes of section 61 did not come about because of a decision of a court or by reason of a claimant's conduct but from an informed decision made by a respondent to a claim.
  • Although one of the reasons for a strict three year time limit is to facilitate the litigation of liability issues, in the present case, this issue did not arise as liability had been admitted.

This decision again illustrates that courts will be reluctant to interpret limitation legislation in a manner that is adverse to a plaintiff's interests unless there is clear legislative intent on the face of the legislation. Further, this decision shows that steps taken by a defendant to comply with their statutory pre-litigation obligations may benefit a claimant by providing them with an extension of the limitation period. However, such outcomes will depend on the wording of relevant personal injuries legislation and limitation legislation in each jurisdiction.


The outcome of a limitation issue will always depend on the individual circumstances of a claim and the wording of relevant limitation legislation. However, these cases demonstrate that while courts will be reluctant to adopt an interpretation of limitations legislation that disadvantages plaintiffs (particularly where the delay is not the fault of the plaintiff) where a plaintiff has failed to act diligently, the courts may be reluctant to grant an extension of the limitation period.

Importantly, the decision in Windsurf Holdings demonstrates that, in considering the concept of prejudice to a defendant, the court will not confine its consideration to abstract concepts of potential evidentiary disadvantages but more practical issues such as a potential defendant's access to insurance coverage to allow them to defend a proposed claim and be indemnified for the loss.

When confronted with potential limitation issues, parties need to give careful consideration to a variety of issues. The list set out below is not intended to be exhaustive but provides a framework for assessing whether limitation claims should be raised in the course of litigation.


  • What is the wording of the limitation legislation?
  • How have the courts interpreted these provisions or similarly worded provisions from other jurisdictions?
  • Do the relevant provisions impose a positive obligation on a plaintiff to obtain relevant information? (Baker- Morrison)
  • Are there statutory pre-litigation procedures that may have given rise to an extension of the limitation period? (Casey v Alcock)


  • What were the relevant events leading up to the proposed claim?
  • Was the delay due to the conduct of the plaintiff or their solicitors?
  • Where a party seeks to add a defendant, at what point in the existing litigation did they become aware of the proposed defendant's potential involvement and what steps were taken to commence proceedings against the proposed defendant?
  • Does the proposed defendant have insurance cover that will allow them to defend the proceedings or satisfy any judgment? (Windsurf Holdings)

Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper, one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your business one step further − by connecting you to a global network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.

This publication is intended as a first point of reference and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this publication.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions