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”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.