Faculty of Law
Unit Outline
LAWS8585/9585
Limitation of Actions
2008 2nd Semester, 6 points
13-14 and 20-21 September 2008
Unit Co-ordinator: Professor Peter Handford
Rm: 2.08
Tel: 6488 2958
Email: peter.handford@uwa.edu.au
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 3
CONTACT DETAILS ............................................................................................................... 3
LEARNING OUTCOMES ........................................................................................................ 4
CLASSES ................................................................................................................................... 4
TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCES .......................................................................................... 5
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OTHER WORKS .................................................................................. 5
ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................................................... 7
Class Outlines
I: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE ....................................... 8
II: GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................... 11
III: THE WA LEGISLATION: THE OLD AND THE NEW ................................................. 15
IV: PERSONAL INJURY ........................................................................................................ 20
V: EXTENDING THE LIMITATION PERIOD ..................................................................... 25
VI: MINORS AND PERSONS WITH MENTAL DISABILITY ........................................... 29
VII: CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT ................................................................ 32
VIII: NEGLIGENCE: DEFECTIVE STRUCTURES ............................................................. 35
IX: NEGLIGENCE: OTHER ECONOMIC LOSS CASES .................................................... 38
X: EQUITABLE CLAIMS ...................................................................................................... 41
XI: ACTIONS RELATING TO LAND ................................................................................... 44
XII: MORTGAGES; ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND PART PAYMENT .............................. 48
TEACHING AND LEARNING RESPONSIBILITIES .......................................................... 51
GENERAL RULES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALL LAW UNITS ................. 52
2
INTRODUCTION
This unit examines the law relating to limitation and notice of actions in civil proceedings. It
ranges over a wide area of the civil law, including contract, quasi-contract (or restitution, or
unjust enrichment, depending on which philosophy you adopt), torts (particularly negligence
actions for personal injury, property damage and economic loss), real property, equity and
securities. There are also procedural and conflict of laws aspects.
The unit will be presented on an intensive basis, over two weekends, 13-14 September and
20-21 September 2008. There will be three lectures on each day, each lasting approximately
one and a half hours.
The timing of this unit is propitious. The Limitation Act 2005 received the Royal Assent on 12
November 2005. For many years prior to this, the law on limitation of actions in Western
Australia was very out of date: the Limitation Act 1935 was little more than a copy of English
statutes dating from the 19th century or even earlier, and reforms adopted in other
jurisdictions from the 1930s onwards had had no impact. However, the law has now
undergone fundamental reform, and Western Australia now has the most modern limitation
legislation of any Australian jurisdiction. The 2005 Act applies only to causes of action which
accrue on or after 15 November 2005, and so until now lawyers have been almost exclusively
concerned with claims to which the old Act applies. But the new Act is about to come into its
own. One of the most important reforms is the introduction of a three year limitation period
for personal injury claims. This means that a claim which accrued on 16 November 2005 will
expire on 16 November 2008. So in September 2008, when the classes in this unit take place,
lawyers will be on the threshold of confronting the new Act as a reality in their day-to-day
operations.
The Limitation Act 2005 was preceded by a long and searching reform process carried out by
the Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, which resulted in its 1997 Report on
Limitation and Notice of Actions. Though the Act does not adopt the Commission’s central
recommendations, the Report played a key part in creating an impetus for reform: the Act
adopts a number of its specific recommendations, and other provisions owe their existence to
the alternatives presented for discussion in the Report.
The unit will present a combination of the old and the new. It will explain the provisions of
the Limitation Act 1935 (which will remain important for some time yet, and it will also give
detailed coverage to the provisions of the new Act, and explain why they are an improvement
on the old law. But the unit will venture much further than this. Much of the law of limitation
of actions remains case-based, and the unit will examine a selection of cases from Australia,
England, Canada and elsewhere, to show how different jurisdictions have tackled the same
problems. There will also be some discussion of reform proposals and legislative solutions
adopted in other jurisdictions.
Peter Handford
CONTACT DETAILS
Professor Peter Handford
Law School Room 2.08
Phone: 6488 2958
Fax: 6488 1045
Email: peter.handford@uwa.edu.au
3
LEARNING OUTCOMES
At the end of the unit, students should be able to
(1) understand the provisions of the Limitation Acts of 1935 and 2005 and the relationship
between them, the general principles of limitations law, and the relevant policy issues;
(2) demonstrate that understanding by writing of essays dealing with the policy issues
involved in reform of limitation of actions law, and another subject of their choice;
(3) use the understanding they have gained in legal practice and other law-related areas.
CLASSES
All classes will be held in Seminar Room 3. Morning and afternoon tea will be available
during the breaks.
The schedule of classes is follows:
Saturday 13 September
9.00 – 10.30
Limitation of actions: past, present and future
11.00 – 12.30
General principles
2.00 – 3.30
The WA legislation – the old and the new
Sunday 14 September
9.00 – 10.30
Personal injury
11.00 – 12.30
Extending the limitation period
2.00 – 3.30
Minors and persons with mental disability
Saturday 20 September
9.00 – 10.30
Contract and unjust enrichment
11.00 – 12.30
Negligence: defective structures
2.00 – 3.30
Negligence: other economic loss cases
Sunday 21 September
9.00 – 10.30
Equitable claims
11.00 – 12.30
Actions relating to land
2.00 – 3.30
Mortgages, acknowledgment and part payment
4
TEXTBOOKS AND RESOURCES
The most important materials are:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA), reprint 3, as at 14 March 2003 (obtainable from State Law
Publisher)
Limitation Act 2005 (obtainable from State Law Publisher)
Limitation Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2005 (obtainable from State Law
Publisher)
Handford P, Limitation of Actions: The Australian Law (2nd ed, Lawbook Co 2007)
(also published in The Laws of Australia, vol 5.10)
Law Reform Commission of Western Australia, Report on Limitation and Notice of
Actions: Project No 36 Part II, 1997
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OTHER WORKS
Texts
Texts dealing with the old 19th-century law, much of which is still in force in WA:
Darby G N and Bosanquet F A, Statutes of Limitations (2nd ed, Clowes 1893)
Buswell H F, The Statute of Limitations and Adverse Possession (Little, Brown 1889)
Texts dealing with the law in particular Australian jurisdictions:
Hinson M D and Redmond F W, Limitation of Actions (Queensland) (Queensland
Law Society 1987)
Jenkins M, Koroknay P and Lo Surdo A, Limitation of Actions – NSW: A Practical
Guide (Prospect Media 1997)
Modern English texts:
McGee A, Limitation Periods (5th ed, Sweet & Maxwell 2006)
Prime T and Scanlan G P, The Law of Limitation (2nd ed, Oxford 2001)
James R D, Limitation of Actions (Tolley 1993)
Redmond-Cooper R, Limitation of Actions (Sweet & Maxwell 1992)
Weeks J H, Preston and Newsom on Limitation of Actions (4th ed, Longman 1989)
Older English texts:
Newsom G H and Abel-Smith L, Preston and Newsom on Limitation of Actions (3rd
ed, Solicitors’ Law Stationery Society 1953)
Franks M, Limitation of Actions (Sweet & Maxwell 1959)
A Canadian text:
Morton J C, Limitation of Civil Actions (Carswell 1988)
5
The following are useful on particular topics:
Seddon N C and Ellinghaus M P, Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract (9th Aust ed,
LexisNexis Butterworths 2008) ch 25
Balkin R P and Davis J L R, Law of Torts (3rd ed, LexisNexis Butterworths 2004) ch
28
Trindade F, Cane P and Lunney M, Law of Torts in Australia (4th ed, Oxford 2007) ch
18
Bradbrook A J, MacCallum S V and Moore A P, Australian Real Property Law (4th
ed, Lawbook Co 2007), ch 17
Meagher R P, Heydon JD and Leeming MJ, Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity:
Doctrines and Remedies (4th ed, LexisNexis Butterworths 2002) ch 36
Sykes E I and Walker S, The Law of Securities (5th ed, Lawbook Co 1993) ch 19
Davies M and Dickey A, Shipping Law (2nd ed, Lawbook Co 1995) ch 14
Law reform publications
There are many reports from various jurisdictions, some dealing with the whole area and
others limited to particular topics. For a list of the most important works complete to 1997,
see WALRC Report pp 13-14. Not all of these are in the Library. Some may be available on
law reform commission websites. The most important reports which have been published
since publication of the WALRC Report are:
Queensland Law Reform Commission, Review of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974
(Qld): Discussion Paper (WP No 50, 1997)
Queensland Law Reform Commission, Review of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974
(Qld) (Report No 53, 1998)
[England and Wales] Law Commission, Limitation of Actions: A Consultation Paper
(Consultation Paper No 151, 1998)
[England and Wales] Law Commission, Limitation of Actions (Law Com No 270,
2001)
New Zealand Law Commission, Limitation of Civil Actions: A Discussion Paper
(Preliminary Paper 39, 2000)
New Zealand Law Commission, Tidying the Limitation Act (Report 61, 2000)
British Columbia Law Institute, The Ultimate Limitation Period: Updating the
Limitation Act (Report 19, 2002)
6
ASSESSMENT
There will be no examination. Assessment will be by two essays [due dates to be negotiated]:

An essay on the following topic:
“Do sections 14, 39, 44, 55 and 56 of the Limitation Act 2005 provide a satisfactory
legislative approach to the problem of setting time limits in personal injury cases for
Western Australia? Would the legislation of any other Australian jurisdiction have
offered a preferable solution?”
approx 4,000 words
worth 50%

An essay on any topic (other than personal injury), subject to my approval
approx 4,000 words
worth 50%
7
I: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS: PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE
1.
SCOPE OF THE SUBJECT
1.1
Subject matter
1.2
The law in Western Australia
(a)
The pre-2005 law
Limitation Act 1935 (WA)
Plus a few provisions in –
Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA)
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1941 (WA)
Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA)
Other limitation provisions:
Limitation Act 1935 s 49
See Law Society, Causes of Action and Time Limitations (1985)
Examples:
Inheritance (Family and Dependants Provision) Act 1972 (WA) s 7(2)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 29
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1884 Amendment Act 1888 (WA) s 5
Family Court Act 1997 (WA) s 205ZB
(b)
The post-2005 law
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
s 2 – commencement
s 4 – application (only causes of action accruing after commencement day,
subject to s 7 (personal injury in course of childbirth)
s 5 – no revival (subject to s 6)
s 9 – other legislation (reproducing Limitation Act 1935 s 49)
[Sections not to be covered:
Tax: ss 28, 86-87
Arbitration: ss 29, 54, 63, 88
Joint rights and liabilities: ss 82-83]
1.3
The law elsewhere
2.
THE OLD LAW IN ENGLAND
Statute of Westminster I 1275
Limitation of Prescription Act 1540
Limitation Act 1623
Crown Suits Act 1769
Civil Procedure Act 1833
Real Property Limitation Acts 1833 and 1874
Trustee Act 1888
Public Authorities Protection Act 1893
8
3.
THE OLD LAW IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
3.1
The pre-1935 law
Limitation Act 1623 (received)
Crown Suits Act 1769 (received)
Civil Procedure Act 1833 (adopted 1836)
Real Property Limitation Act 1833 (adopted 1836)
Real Property Limitation Act 1878 (WA)
Trustees Act 1900 (WA)
3.2
The Limitation Act 1935
Major amendments:
1954 s 47A
1978 s 37A
1983 ss 38A-38B
1997 ss 37A-37C
4.
THE LAW ELSEWHERE: THE FIRST WAVE OF REFORM
4.1
England
Statute Law Revision Committee, Fifth Interim Report (Statutes of Limitation
(1936 Cmd 5334) (Wright Committee)
Limitation Act 1939 (UK)
Law Reform Committee, Twenty-First Report (Final Report on Limitation of
Actions) (1977 Cmnd 6923)
Limitation Act 1980 (UK)
4.2
Australia and New Zealand
Limitation Act 1950 (NZ)
Limitation of Actions Act 1955 (Vic)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) (consolidation)
Limitation Act 1960 (Qld)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (consolidation)
Limitation Act 1874 (Tas)
NSWLRC, Report on the Limitation of Actions (LRC 3, 1967)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1981 (NT)
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT)
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) (reproducing older legislation)
9
4.3
Canada
Uniform Limitation of Actions Act 1931
(adopted in Alta, Man, Sask, PEI, NWT, YT; note also NB, NS)
Ontario LRC, Report on Limitation of Actions (1969)
BC LRC, Report on Limitations (Project No 6 1974)
Limitations Act 1975 (BC)
5.
THE SECOND WAVE OF REFORM
5.1
Canada
Alta LRI, Limitations (Report for Discussion No 4 1986)
Alta LRI, Limitations (Report No 55 1989)
Limitations Act 1996 (Alta)
Limitations Act 2002 (Ont)
Limitations Act 2004 (Sask)
5.2
New Zealand
NZLC, Limitation Defences in Civil Proceedings (Report No 6 1988)
NZLC, Tidying the Limitation Act (Report 61 2000)
5.3
Western Australia
WALRC, Report on Limitation and Notice of Actions (Project No 36
Part II 1997)
5.4
Elsewhere
QLRC, Review of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Report No
53 1998)
[English] Law Commission, Limitation of Actions (Law Com No 270 2001)
Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report (2002)
(http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/review.asp)
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) Div 6 (enacted 2003)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) Part IIA (enacted 2003)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5A (enacted 2004)
6.
THE NEW LAW IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Attorney General of WA, Limitations Law Reform (17 May 2002)
Limitation Bill 2004 (WA)
Limitation Bill 2005 (WA)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
Reading
WALRC chs 1-2, 7, 19
Handford [5.10.120] – [5.10.260], [5.10.310]
10
II: GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1.
PURPOSE OF LIMITATION RULES
A’Court v Cross (1825) 3 Bing 329, 130 ER 540, Best CJ at 332
Leading modern discussions:
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 (HC)
M v M (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 289 (SC Can)
See Handford [5.10.120]; WALRC 1.4-1.5, 7.5-7.48, 9.17-9.21
2.
THE RUNNING OF TIME
2.1
Time begins to run when cause of action accrues to plaintiff
Cause of action accrues when:
1. Necessary facts occur
2. Have competent P and D
Inability to identify D:
RB Policies at Lloyds v Butler [1950] 1 KB 76
M J Goodman “First Catch Your Defendant – Limitation and the Unknown
Tortfeasor” (1966) 29 MLR 366
Law Reform Committee (Orr Committee) Report 1977 para 3.8
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 5(b)
Definitions of “cause of action”
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 (CA) per Diplock LJ at 242
Read v Brown (1882) 22 QBD 128, Lord Esher MR at 131
Definition of “action”:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 3(1)
See Handford [5.10.260], [5.10.450]
Arbitrations: see Handford [5.10.1860]; WALRC 19.18-19.19
2.2
Running of limitation period stopped by commencement of proceedings
RSC 1971 (WA) O 7 r 1
Counting day of issue:
Trow v Ind Coope (West Midlands) Ltd [1967] 2 QB 899 (CA)
Adverse possession (see Class XI)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 12
Counterclaim and set-off:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 46
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 81
See Handford [5.10.460]; WALRC 20.1-20.12
11
2.3
In calculating limitation periods, day on which cause of action arose is excluded,
but day on which proceedings commenced is included
Prowse v McIntyre (1963) 111 CLR 264 (HC)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) s 61
See Handford [5.10.470]
2.4
Once limitation period has commenced, it cannot be stopped
Prideaux v Webber (1661) 1 Lev 31, 83 ER 282
Exceptions:
1. Disability (ACT, NSW, NT, SA, WA)
2. Seagram v Knight (1867) LR 2 Ch App 628
3. Sequestration and winding up orders
4. War etc (ACT, NSW, Tas, Vic)
See Handford [5.10.480]; WALRC 18.55-18.57
2.5
Parties may by contract fix shorter limitation period
1. Contract may fix shorter period
2. Contracts agreeing not to plead limitation period
Lubovsky v Snelling [1944] KB 44 (CA)
3. Negotiations
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 45
See Handford [5.10.490]; WALRC 18.1-18.7
2.6
Defendant may be prevented from relying on limitation period by estoppel
Commonwealth v Verwayen (1990) 170 CLR 394 (HC)
See Handford [5.10.500]
3.
EFFECT OF TIME HAVING RUN
Pre-2005 position in WA:
1. Bars remedy, not right
2. Exception – actions for recovery of land:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 30
Position in New South Wales:
Extinguishes right:
NSWLRC Report 1967 paras 306-323
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 63
D Jackson “The Legal Effects of the Passing of Time” (1970) 7 MULR 407,
449
12
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 75 (nb does not adopt same rule for chattels)
See Handford [5.10.510]; WALRC 7.56-7.67
4.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS
4.1
Pleading
1. D must plead limitation in defence: RSC 1971 (WA) O 20 r 9(1)
2. Unless limitation extinguishes right, when P must plead it
3. P can plead extension of period in reply
4. Amendments
Handford [5.10.2380]
4.2
Onus of proof
Is on D:
Pullen v Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 (AD)
N J Mullany “Australian Limitation Law – Relieving the Burden” (1993)
109 LQR 215
Onus in relation to extension of time:
Brisbane South, above
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 79
See Handford [5.10.2390]; WALRC 8.1-8.11
4.3
Effect of limitation rules on subsequent procedural steps
(a)
Renewal of writ
Van Leer Australia Pty Ltd v Palace Shipping KK (1981) 180 CLR 337 (HC)
See Handford [5.10.2400]; WALRC 20.14
(b)
Amendment of writ
RSC 1971 (WA) O 21 rr 1, 3, 5
Weldon v Neal (1887) 19 QBD 394
Stone James (a firm) v Pioneer Concrete (WA) Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 233 (FC)
Dye v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd (1998) 19 WAR 431 (FC)
Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474 (FC)
Procter v Jetway Aviation Pty Ltd [1984] 1 NSWLR 166 (CA)
See Handford [5.10.2410]; WALRC 20.15-20.20
(c)
Application to dismiss action for want of prosecution
See Handford [5.10.2420]; WALRC 20.21-20.26
13
5.
CLASSIFICATION AND CONFLICT OF LAWS
5.1
Issues
Presumption against retrospective operation:
Rodway v R (1990) 169 CLR 515 (HC)
See Handford [5.10.320]
5.2
Characterisation of limitation laws
McKain v R W Miller & Co (SA) Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 1 (HC)
Choice of Law (Limitation Periods) Act 1994 (WA) s 5
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 (HC)
Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang (2002) 76 ALJR 551 (HC)
See Handford [5.10.330]
5.3
Federal jurisdiction
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) ss 79-80
See Handford [5.10.340]
Reading
Handford [5.10.120], [5.10.260], [5.10.320] – [5.10.340], [5.10.450] – [5.10.510],
[5.10.2380] – [5.10.2420]
WALRC 1.4-1.5, 7.5-7.48, 7.56-7.67, 8.1-8.11, 9.17-9.21, 18.1-18.7,18.55-18.57,
19.18-19.19, 20.1-20.26
14
III: THE WA LEGISLATION: THE OLD AND THE NEW
1.
THE LIMITATION ACT 1935 (WA)
See WALRC 2.44-2.58
1.1
Structure
1.2
Archaic drafting style
1.3
Use of out of date concepts
(a)
Section 38
Reliance on categories based on forms of action
Incorporation of obsolete actions
“Menace”: see P Handford “Tort Liability for Threatening or Insulting Words”
(1976) 54 Can BR 563, 571-573
Limitation Bill 2005 cl 15 (compare Limitation Act 2005 s 16)
Perpetuation of out of date distinctions
Trespass and case:
Williams v Holland (1833) 10 Bing 112, 131 ER 848 (CP Eng)
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 (CA Eng)
Williams v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465 (HC)
Libel and slander
Failure to reflect modern distinctions
(b)
Elsewhere
Tenants in tail (ss 21-23)
Coparcenary (s 14)
Restraints upon anticipation (s 47(1)(b)) (amended 2003)
1.4
Practical difficulties
State Government Insurance Commission v Teal (1990) 2 WAR 105 (SC)
Cork & Bandon Railway Co v Goode (1853) 13 CB 826, 138 ER 1427 (CP)
15
2.
THE LIMITATION ACT 2005
2.1
Structure
2.2
Drafting style
2.3
Technique: general limitation period
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 11 – 6 years
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 13 – 6 years
3.
TORT: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
3.1
Limitation periods in tort
See Handford [5.10.740]–[5.10.820], [5.10.1240]–[5.10.1250]; WALRC 4.114.15, 12.18-12.37
What is the limitation period for
Limitation Act 1935
Limitation Act 2005
Torts in general
Personal injury
Trespass to the person
Intentional harm to person
other than trespass
Trespass to land and
goods
Detinue and conversion
Defamation
Breach of statutory duty
(a)
Tort generally: negligence
(b)
Personal injury
(c)
Trespass to the person
See Handford [5.10.760]; WALRC 12.27-12.28
(d)
Action for intentional harm to person other than trespass
P Handford “Wilkinson v Downton and Acts Calculated to Cause
Physical Harm” (1985) 16 UWAL Rev 31 at 34-38
(e)
Trespass to land and goods, detinue and conversion
See Handford [5.10.770]; WALRC 12.34-12.37
16
(f)
Defamation
1 year limitation period for actions against newspapers:
Newspaper Libel and Registration Act 1884 Amendment Act 1888 (WA) s 5
See Handford [5.10.780], [5.10.1240] – [5.10.1250]; WALRC 12.23-12.26
Extension of period: Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 40
(g)
Breach of statutory duty
Clarkson v Modern Foundries Ltd [1957] 1 WLR 1210
See Handford [5.10.740]
3.2
Accrual rules in tort
(a)
Generally
Torts actionable per se
Torts actionable on proof of damage:
Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd [1959] AC 604 (HL)
J Stapleton, “The Gist of Negligence” (1988) 104 LQR 213
Continuing torts and states of affairs:
Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell (1886) 11 App Cas 127 (HL)
See Handford [5.10.750] – [5.10.820]; WALRC 4.11-4.14
(b)
Under the Limitation Act 2005
Personal injury:
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) ss, 55, 56, 57
Successive conversions:
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 60
4.
CONTRACT AND RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION
What is the limitation period for
Limitation Act 1935
Limitation Act 2005
Breach of contract
Actions on a
specialty/actions on a deed
Actions in quasi-contract
Actions for account
4.1
Simple contracts
See Handford [5.10.620] – [5.10.700]; WALRC 4.7-4.8, 12.5-12.7
17
4.2
Specialties and deeds
See Handford [5.10.710]; WALRC 12.8-12.12
4.3
Quasi-contract
Quasi-contract actions:
Money had and received
Money paid
Quantum meruit
Quantum valebat
See Handford [5.10.720]; WALRC 4.9, 12.13
4.4
Actions for an account
See Handford [5.10.730]; WALRC 12.14-12.17, 13.19
5.
OTHER PROVISIONS
What is the limitation period for:
Limitation Act 1935
Limitation Act 2005
Actions for contribution and
indemnity between joint
tortfeasors
Actions on a judgment
Actions to enforce arbitral
awards
Actions to enforce a
recognisance
Actions to recover
penalties, forfeitures, and
other sums recoverable
under statute
Actions to recover arrears
of interest
5.1
Contribution and indemnity between joint tortfeasors
Law Reform (Contributory Negligence and Tortfeasors’ Contribution
Act 1947 (WA)
Nature of action:
Harvey v R G O’Dell Ltd [1958] 2 QB 78
Unsworth v Commissioner for Railways (1958) 101 CLR 73 (HC)
State Government Insurance Office (Qld) v Crittenden (1966) 117 CLR
412 (HC)
Thomson v Lord Clanmorris [1900] 1 Ch 718 (CA)
NSWLRC Report 1967 para 155
See Handford [5.10.1260]; WALRC 12.61-12.66
18
5.2
Actions on a judgment
Limitation period for issuing execution on a judgment:
6 years: Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA) s 141
W T Lamb & Sons v Rider [1948] 2 KB 331 (CA)
Foreign judgments:
Grant v Easton (1883) 13 QB 302 (CA), Brett MR at 303
Berliner Industriebank AG v Jost [1971] 2 QB 463 (CA)
See Handford [5.10.1270]; WALRC 12.38-12.45
5.3
Actions to enforce arbitral awards
Accrual: Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 64
See Handford [5.10.1280]; WALRC 12.46-12.47
5.4
Actions to enforce a recognisance
See Handford [5.10.1290]; WALRC 12.48-12.49
5.5
Actions to recover penalties, forfeitures and other sums recoverable under
statute
Some examples in other jurisdictions:
Central Electricity Board v Halifax Corporation [1963] AC 765 (HL)
Hillingdon London Borough Council v ARC Ltd [1997] 3 All ER 506 (Ch)
Ex parte Workers Compensation Board (Qld) [1983] 1 Qd R 450
Howard Marine & Dredging Co Ltd v A Ogden & Sons (Excavations) Ltd
[1978] QB 574 (CA)
Ardeshirian v Robe River Iron Associates (1993) 43 FCR 575
See Handford [5.10.1300]; WALRC 12.50-12.57
5.6
Actions to recover arrears of interest
See Handford [5.10.1310]; WALRC 12.58-12.60
Reading
Handford [5.10.620] – [5.10.820], [5.10.1240] – [5.10.1310]
WALRC 2.44-2.58, 4.1-4.14, 12.5-12.66, 13.19
19
IV: PERSONAL INJURY
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
2.1
Pre-2005 law in Western Australia
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) – no special provision for personal injury
Negligence – s 38(1)(c)(vi) – 6 years
Special situations where there is a 1 year period extendable to 6 years:
Fatal accidents: Fatal Accidents Act 1959 (WA) s 7
Public authorities: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 47A
Actions against the Crown: Crown Suits Act 1947 (WA) s 6
Asbestos-related diseases:
Period runs from date of knowledge: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38A
(introduced 1983)
2.2
Other jurisdictions
3 year period for personal injury
2.3
The new law in Western Australia: Limitation Act 2005
`
Personal injury, fatal accidents – 3 years: s 14
Accrual rule for personal injury: s 55
Accrual rule for asbestos-related diseases: s 56
Retrospective effect: s 6
3.
PERSONAL INJURY AS A LIMITATION CATEGORY
3.1
What constitutes personal injury
(a)
Definition
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 3(1):
“Personal injury includes a disease, impairment of a person’s physical
condition, and mental disability”.
(b)
Physical injury
(c)
Psychiatric injury
Hinz v Berry [1970] 2 QB 40 (CA), Lord Denning MR at 42-43
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383 (HC), Windeyer J at 394
20
Accrual: see P R Handford, Mullany and Handford’s Tort Liability for
Psychiatric Damage (2nd ed 2006), paras [14.220]-[14.250]
Distress short of psychiatric injury:
Tame v New South Wales (2002) 76 ALJR 1348 (HC) at [168]-[185], [192][195]
Wilson v Horne (1999) 8 Tas R 363 (FC)
See Mullany and Handford paras [2.110]-[2.290]
(d)
Secondary consequences of personal injury
Joint tortfeasors – action for contribution or indemnity:
Unsworth v Commissioner for Railways (1958) 101 CLR 73 (HC)
Bargen v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) (1982) 154 CLR 318 (HC)
Action against solicitor for failing to sue:
Ackbar v C F Green & Co Ltd [1975] QB 582
Action by partnership for injury to partner:
Howe v David Brown Tractors (Retail) Ltd [1991] 4 All ER 30 (CA)
Action against statutory insurer:
Hall v National & General Insurance Co Ltd [1967] VR 355, Gowans J at 367
Insurance Commissioner v Moss [1969] VR 650 (FC)
Carslake v Guardian Assurance Co (1977) 15 SASR 378 (FC)
(e)
Sexual abuse
Tiernan v Tiernan (unreported, Qld SC, 13 April 1993, 39 of 1992)
Action against secondary party:
S v W (Child Abuse: Damages) [1995] 1 FLR 862
(f)
Other cases of trespass to the person
(g)
Wrongful birth and wrongful life
Pattison v Hobbs The Times, 11 Nov 1985 (CA)
Walkin v South Manchester Health Authority [1995] 1 WLR 1543
Cattenach v Melchior (2003) 215 CLR 1 (HC)
Caven v Women’s and Children’s Health (2006) 15 VR 419
Harriton v Stephens (2006) 226 CLR 26 (HC)
(h)
Fear of disease
Commonwealth v Dinnison (1995) 56 FCR 389 (FC)
Sandstrom v Commonwealth (unreported, Fed Ct, 4 March 1994, NG564
of 1991)
See Mullany and Handford ch 27
21
3.2
Techniques for marking off personal injury cases
(a)
“Negligence, nuisance or breach of duty”
Origins:
Law Reform (Limitation of Actions etc) Act 1954 (UK) s 2(1)
Australian equivalents:
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(6) (abolished 1983)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5(1)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 11
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 18A (not applicable after 6/12/2002)
Compare: Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 36(1)
Extension provisions:
Limitation Act 1980 (UK) s 11
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(1A)
(not applicable after 1/10/2003)
Loss of consortium and services:
Opperman v Opperman [1975] Qd R 345 (FC) (loss of consortium)
Ure v Humes Ltd [1969] QWN 25 (loss of services)
Trespass:
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232 (CA)
Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 493 (HL)
Devlin v Roche [2002] 2 IR 360
Kruber v Grzesiak [1963] VR 621
Mason v Mason [1997] 1 VR 301 (CA)
Stingel v Clark (2006) 226 CLR 442 (see (2006) 14 Tort L Rev 125)
A v Hoare [2008] 2 WLR 311 (HL) (see (2008) 16 Tort L Rev 61)
Disease or disorder:
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(1A) (above)
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 16B
Stingel v Clark, above
(b)
“An action for damages relating to a personal injury to a person”
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 50A(1)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 27B(1)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 14
4.
THE ACCRUAL RULE
4.1
Problems: latent injury cases
(a)
Asbestos-related diseases
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758 (HL)
Mesothelioma: see Handford [5.10.830]
22
(b)
Latency in other contexts
Kosky v Trustees of the Sisters of Charity [1982] VR 961 (blood transfusion)
G D Searle & Co v Gunn [1996] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) (IUD)
Voyager cases
4.2
Problems: factors other than latency
(a)
Particular examples
PD v Australian Red Cross Society (1993) Aust Torts Reports 81-205 (NSW)
(AIDS)
Bergfels v Port Stephen Shire Council [1983] 2 NSWLR 578 (getting
evidence)
(b)
Sexual abuse cases
Taylor v Trustees of the Christian Brothers (1994) Aust Torts Reports 81-288
(SC Vic)
Reidy v Trustees of the Christian Brothers (1994) 12 WAR 583
DJ v Trustees of the Christian Brothers (unreported, SC NSW, 15 Dec 1994,
17814 of 1993)
(c)
Stolen generation cases
Williams v Minister, Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 (1994) 35 NSWLR 497
(CA); (1999) Aust Torts Reports 81-526 (SC); (2000) Aust Torts
Reports 81-578 (CA)
Cubillo v Commonwealth (1999) 89 FCR 528; (2000) 103 FCR 1; (2001) 183
ALR 249 (Fed FC)
4.3
Judicial reform of the accrual rule
(a)
Canada
City of Kamloops v Nielsen (1984) 10 DLR (4th) 641 (SC)
(defective buildings)
Central Trust Co v Rafuse (1986) 31 DLR (4th) 481 (SC)
(professional advice)
M v M (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 289 (SC) (sexual abuse)
(b)
New Zealand
Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1994] 3 NZLR 513 (CA),
[1996] I NZLR 513 (PC) (defective buildings)
S v G [1995] 3 NZLR 681 (CA) (sexual abuse)
G D Searle & Co v Gunn [1996] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) (IUD)
C French “Time and the Blamelessly Ignorant Plaintiff”
(1998) 9 Otago LR 255
Murray v Morel & Co Ltd [2007] 3 NZLR 721 (SC)
T Weston, “Limiting Limitation (2)” [2007] NZLJ 169
H Brown, “’Reasonable discoverability’: the final word?” [2007] NZLJ 183
23
(c)
Australia
Defective buildings:
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 (HC), Deane J at 587-588
Pullen v Gutteridge, Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 at 66-71
Wilson v Horne, above (Evans J)
4.4
Statutory reform of the accrual rule
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(1A)
Limitation Act 1980 (UK) s 11
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38A(6)
Post-2002 reforms:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 50C
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 27D
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5A
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 16B
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) ss 55, 56
Reading
Handford [5.10.830] – [5.10.1130] (which also includes extension of limitation period)
WALRC 1.13-1.15, 4.16, 4.23-4.28 (general), 9.1-9.40 (sexual abuse), 12.27-12.32 (reform
proposals)
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Commonwealth Review Panel, 2 August 2002,
paras 5.1-5.114 (www.lawcouncil.asn.au/submissions.html)
24
V: EXTENDING THE LIMITATION PERIOD
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
SOME LEGISLATIVE ALTERNATIVES
2.1
Material facts not within plaintiff’s knowledge
(a)
Queensland
Report of the Committee on Limitation of Actions in Cases of Personal Injury
(1962 Cmnd 1829)
Limitation Act 1963 (UK)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 57B, 58
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23A (added 1972)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) ss 30(1), 31(2)
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 (HC)
(nature of discretion)
Minoque v Bestobell Industries Pty Ltd [1981] Qd R 356 (FC) (evidence)
Do Carmo v Ford Excavations Pty Ltd (1984) 154 CLR 234 (HC)
(material facts)
Tiernan v Tiernan (unreported, Qld SC, 13 April 1993, 39 of 1992)
(sexual abuse)
(b)
South Australia and Northern Territory
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 48 (added 1972)
Limitation Act 1981 (NT) s 44
Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd v Mills (1987) 163 CLR 628 (HC)
2.2
Discoverability plus discretion
(a)
England
Central Asbestos Co Ltd v Dodd [1973] AC 518 (HL), Lord Reid at 529
Law Reform Committee, Twentieth Report (Interim Report on Limitation of
Actions: In Personal Injury Claims) (1974 Cmnd 5630)
Limitation Act 1975 (UK)
Limitation Act 1980 (UK) ss 11,14, 33
P J Davies, “Limitations of the Law of Limitation” (1982) 98 LQR 249
Stubbings v Webb [1992] QB 197 (CA), reversed [1993] AC 498 (HL)
(sexual abuse)
M A Jones, “Accidental Harm, Intentional Harm and Limitation” (1994) 110
LQR 31
25
(b)
Victoria
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(1A) (added 1983)
2.3
Discretion to extend if just and reasonable
(a)
The WALRC 1982 Report
WALRC, Report on Limitation and Notice of Actions: Latent Disease and
Injury (Project No 36 Part I, 1982)
(b)
Victoria and Australian Capital Territory (pre-2003)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23A (added 1983)
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 36
(c)
New South Wales (pre-2002)
NSWLRC, Limitation of Actions for Personal Injury Claims (LRC 50, 1986)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 60C, 60E, 60G, 60I
Council of the City of Sydney v Zegarac (1998) Aust Torts Rep 81-474
(NSWCA) (applicability of Brisbane South)
(d)
Tasmania (pre-2004)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5(3)
2.4
Generalised reform: two general limitation periods
Alberta Law Reform Institute, Limitations (Report No 55 1989)
Limitations Act 1996 (Alta)
WALRC, Report on Limitation and Notice of Actions (Project No 36 Part II,
1997)
QLRC, Review of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) (Report No 53,
1998)
Law Commission, Limitation of Actions (Law Com No 270, 2001)
2.5
The Commonwealth Review Panel Report 2002
(a)
The Panel’s recommendations
Commonwealth Review Panel, Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report
(September 2002) ch 6 (see below)
(b)
Adoption of the Panel’s recommendations
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 50A-50D, 62A-62F (added 2002)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) Part II (added 2003)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 5A (added 2004)
Compare:
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 16B
26
3.
SOME ISSUES
3.1
The extension provisions compared
3.2
What should the length of the limitation period be?
WALRC 7.49-7.55
Law Council submission paras 5.81-5.92
3.3
Drafting of knowledge provisions
See WALRC 5.33-5.39
Limitations Act 1996 (Alta) s 3(1)
WALRC recommendation 1
Law Commission draft Limitation Act cl 2
Report of Commonwealth Review Panel recommendation 24
4.
THE POSITION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
4.1
The pre-2005 legislation
Asbestos-related diseases:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38A(6)-(9) (added 1983)
P Handford, “Damages and Limitation Issues in Asbestos Cases” (1991) 21
UWAL Rev 63
4.2
WALRC Proposals
WALRC Report 1997
Attorney General of Western Australia, Limitations Law Reform (May 2002)
(see below)
4.3
Limitation Act 2005
Limitation period: s 14 (dealt with in IV)
Accrual rules: ss 55-56 (dealt with in IV)
Extension provisions:
Personal injury cases: s 39
Defamation: s 40
Persons under 18, with guardian: s 41
Person with mental disability, with guardian: s 42
Fraud and improper conduct: s 38
Jurisdiction and procedure: s 43
Further matters for court’s consideration: s 44
27
Reading
Handford [5.10.830] – [5.10.1130] (dealing also with limitation periods)
note also [5.10.1140] – [5.10.1190] (wrongful death), [5.10.1830] – [5.10.1850]
(survival of actions), [5.10.1870] – [5.10.1880] (Crown and public authorities)
WALRC ch 5 (extension provisions), 6.1-6.46 (Alberta proposals), 7.1-7.55 (WALRC
recommendations)
Attorney General of Western Australia, Limitations Law Reform (May 2002)
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Commonwealth Review Panel, 2 August 2002,
paras 5.1-5.114 (www.lawcouncil.asn.au/submissions.html)
Commonwealth Review Panel, Review of the Law of Negligence: Final Report (September
2002) ch 6 (http://revofneg.treasury.gov.au/content/review.asp)
28
VI: MINORS AND PERSONS WITH MENTAL DISABILITY
1.
INTRODUCTION
2.
THE GENERAL PROBLEM OF DISABILITY
2.1
Standard provisions in other jurisdictions
(a)
The two models
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23(1)
Note also:
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 29(1)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 26(1)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 52
Note also:
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 45(1)
Limitation Act 1981 (NT) s 52
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 30
(b)
The two models compared
(i) Uniform rules
(ii) Initial disability and supervening disability
Darke v Eltherington [1963] Qd R 375 (FC)
(no need to wait until disability ceases before suing)
Owen v De Beauvoir (1847) 16 M & W 547, 153 ER 1307
(disability occurring after accrual does not stop period running)
(iii) Effect of disability on running of period
(iv) Definition of incapacity
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 2(2)-(3)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 11(3)
Kirby v Leather [1965] 2 QB 367 (CA)
King v Coupland [1981] Qd R 121
Pointon v Walkley [1951] SASR 121
Kotulski v Attard [1981] 1 NSWLR 115
Harnett v Fisher [1927] AC 573 (HL) (restraint of person)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 23(2) (war or warlike operations)
(v) Long stop provision
General long stop provision in NSW:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 51
(vi) Other provisions
29
2.2
The pre-2005 law in Western Australia
(a)
Actions to recover land or rent
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 16-19
(b)
Actions where limitation period fixed by s 38
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 39-43
(c)
Analysis
(i) Two different sets of provisions
(ii) The provisions are out of date
“Beyond the seas”:
Griffiths v Bloch (1878) 4 VLR(L) 294 (FC)
(iii) Some actions not covered by any provision
Brown v Minister of Education [2003] WASCA 204 (FC)
Scott v Western Australia (1994) 11 WAR 382 (FC)
(d)
Proposals for reform
WALRC Report 17.28-17.34
2.3
The post-2005 law
3.
DISABILITY IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES
3.1
The problem
Dissidomino v Newnham (unrep FC WA 12 April 1994, No 84 of 1993)
Headford v Bristol and District Health Authority [1994] TLR 614 (CA)
Harriton v Stephens [2006] HCA 15
3.2
Potential solutions
(a)
Notice to proceed
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 27
Limitation Act 1981 (NT) ss 37-40
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 53
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 31
Ontario Limitations Act Consultation Group, Recommendations for a New
Limitations Act (1991), 34
30
(b)
Custody of a parent rule
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 26(6)
Todd v Davison [1972] AC 392 (HL)
(c)
New versions of custody of a parent rule
Limitations Act 1996 (Alberta) s 5, s 1(h)
WALRC Report 17.57-17.69
QLRC Report (1998), 128
(d)
Law Commission: reducing period that would otherwise apply
Law Commission Report (2001) paras 3.114-3.133
3.3
The Commonwealth Review Panel and the 2002 legislation
Report paras 6.41-6.56
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ss 50E, 50F (added 2002)
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ss 27E, 27I, 27J (added 2003)
Limitation Act 1974 (Tas) s 26(6)-(9) (added 2004)
Compare:
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) ss 30A, 30B (added 2003)
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 45A (added 2003)
Personal Injury Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) Div 1A (added 2003)
3.4
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
New limitation period for childbirth injuries: s 7
Persons under 15: s 30
Persons 15-17: s 31
Suspended where without guardian: ss 32, 35
D in close relationship: ss 33, 36
Defamation: ss 34, 37
Extension: ss 41, 42
Other provisions: ss 52, 53
Reading
Handford [5.10.2000] – [5.10.2140], [5.10.2270]
WALRC ch 17
Law Council of Australia, Submission to the Commonwealth Review Panel, 2 August 2002,
paras 5.115-5.135 (www.lawcouncil.asn,au/submissions.html)
Supplementary Submission, 20 August 2002 (points 3 and 5)
M A Jones “Limitation Periods and Plaintiffs under a Disability – A Zealous Protection?”
(1995) 14 Civil Justice Quarterly 48
B Mathews “Post-Ipp Special Limitation Periods for Cases of Injury to a Child” (2004) 12
TLJ 239
B Mathews “Assessing the Scope of the Post-Ipp ‘Close Associate’ Special Limitation Period
for Child Abuse Cases” (2005) 11 JCULR 63
31
VII: CONTRACT AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT
1.
CONTRACTUAL CLAIMS
1.1
The applicable limitation period
6 years: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38(1)(c)(v)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 13 (general limitation period)
Seamen’s wages:
Act for the Amendment of the Law and the Better Advancement of
Justice 1705 (4 Anne c 16) s 17
1.2
Accrual rules
Cause of action accrues on breach of contract:
See cases cited in Handford [5.10.630] including
Bagot v Stevens Scanlan & Co Ltd [1966] 1 QB 197
Suffering of actual damage does not extend time:
Ward v Lewis (1896) 22 VLR 410
Failure to perform at particular time:
Re McHenry [1894] 3 Ch 290 (CA)
Performance due on particular contingency:
Waters v Earl of Thanet (1842) 2 QB 757, 114 ER 295
Promise to perform at unspecified time:
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd v Hett Stubbs & Kemp [1979] Ch 384
1.3
Accrual rules for particular kinds of contracts
See Handford [5.10.640] – [5.10.700]
Contracts of loan:
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 59
See J Tarrant, “Limitation Legislation and Loans Repayable on Demand”
(2004) 1 UNELJ 249
2.
CONTRACT AND TORT
2.1
Concurrent liability in contract and tort
Bagot v Stevens Scanlan, above
Midland Bank Trust Co v Hett Stubbs & Kemp, above
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 (HC)
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 (HL)
See WALRC 4.29-4.30
32
2.2
Suggestions for reform
Report of WA Select Committee on Professional and Occupational
Liability (1994)
Professional Standards Act 1997 (WA)
Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Limitation of Actions
(1969)
British Columbia Law Reform Commission, Report on the Ultimate
Limitation Period: Limitation Act Section 8 (1990)
WALRC Report (1997) (see 4.31-4.33, 11.4-11.11)
3.
QUASI-CONTRACT, RESTITUTION AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT
3.1
Application of contract provision to quasi-contract
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38(1)(c)(v)
Re Diplock [1948] Ch 465 (CA), Lord Greene MR at 514
Chesworth v Farrar [1967] 1 QB 407
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 13
3.2
Accrual rules for quasi-contract
(a)
Money had and received
Baker v Courage & Co [1901] 1 KB 56 (date of payment)
Guardian Ocean Cargoes Ltd v Banco do Brasil (No 3) [1992]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 193 (CA) (total failure of consideration)
Crombie v Crombie [1903] SASR 147 (unenforceable contract)
(b)
Money paid
Maskell v Horner [1915] 3 KB 106 (CA) (duress)
Phillips-Higgins v Harper [1954] 1 QB 411 (mistake)
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992)
175 CLR 353 (HC) (mistake of law)
Note also Property Law Act 1969 (WA) ss 124-125
(c)
3.3
Quantum meruit and quantum valebat
Quasi-contract, restitution and unjust enrichment
(a)
The unjust enrichment principle
Sinclair v Brougham [1914] AC 398 (HL)
A comparative excursus:
Justinian’s Digest (533 AD)
French Civil Code (1804) arts 1372-1375, 1376-1381
L’arrêt Boudier (1892) D 92.1.596 (Cour de Cassation)
German Civil Code (1900) art 812
Restatement of Restitution (USA) (1937) s 1
33
Pavey & Matthews v Paul (1987) 162 CLR 221 (HC)
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC [1996] AC 669 (HL)
(b)
Consequences of recognition of the unjust enrichment principle
G Jones, Goff & Jones: The Law of Restitution (6th ed 2002) ch 1
P Birks “Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy” (1996)
26 UWAL Rev 1
(c)
Unjust enrichment and the law of limitation of actions
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 38(1)
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 11
H McLean “Limitation of Actions in Restitution” [1989] Camb LJ 472
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38(1)(c)(vii)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) ss 13, 27
Reading
Handford [5.10.620] – [5.10.720]
WALRC 4.7-4.9, 4.29-4.52, 6.28-6.30, 11.1-11.21, 12.5-12.7, 12.13
NC Seddon and M P Ellinghaus, Cheshire and Fifoot’s Law of Contract (9th Aust ed
2008) ch 25
K Mason & J W Carter, Restitution Law in Australia (1995) ch 27
G Jones, Goff & Jones: The Law of Restitution (6th ed 2002) ch 43
H McLean “Limitation of Actions in Restitution” [1989] Camb LJ 472
J Edelman “Limitation Periods and the Theory of Unjust Enrichment” (2005) 68 MLR 848
34
VIII: NEGLIGENCE: DEFECTIVE STRUCTURES
1.
THE DUTY OF CARE ISSUE
1.1
Introduction
Potential Ds – builders, contractors, engineers, architects, local council
Nature of loss
Relationship between contract and tort:
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 529 (HC)
Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd [1995] 2 AC 145 (HL)
Problem of subsequent purchasers
Problem of builder-vendors and the “privity of contract fallacy”:
Bottomley v Bannister [1932] 1 KB 458 (CA)
Otto v Bolton [1936] 2 KB 46
1.2
The law in England
Dutton v Bognor Regis UDC [1972] 1 QB 323 (CA)
builder-vendor immunity revisited
loss was property damage
council liable, but basis uncertain
Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 (HL)
the ‘Anns two-step’
council’s liability based on liability of public authorities
builder-vendor liable
loss was material physical damage
The high-water mark of liability:
Junior Books Ltd v Veitchi Co Ltd [1983] 1 AC 520 (HL)
Contractor liable for economic loss though no contract
The retreat:
Junior Books and Anns avoided:
D & F Estates Ltd v Church Commissioners [1989] AC 177 (HL)
Anns two-step abandoned:
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605 (HL)
Anns overruled:
Murphy v Brentwood UDC [1991] 1 AC 398 (HL)
Department of the Environment v Thomas Bates & Son [1991] AC 419 (HL)
35
1.3
The law in Australia
Liability of local council:
Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 (HC)
Anns two-step rejected (and proximity adopted)
liability of public authorities
loss was economic loss
liability based on reliance
Liability of builder:
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 (HC)
loss was economic loss
duty owed to subsequent purchaser
Woolcock Street Investments Pty Ltd v CDG Pty Ltd (2004) 216 CLR 515(HC)
2.
LIMITATION RULES
2.1
The applicable limitation period
Period applicable to tort actions, eg:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38(1)(c)(vi)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 13
2.2
The accrual rule
(a)
England
Early cases:
Dutton (above): when constructed
Sparham-Souter v Town & Country Developments (Essex) Ltd
[1976] QB 858 (CA): when discoverable
Anns (above): when present or imminent danger to health and safety
Pirelli:
Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners
[1983] 2 AC 1 (HL): when physical damage occurred
 Successor owners owed duty as class
 Exception for building “doomed from the start”
Relationship with Junior Books:
Dove v Banhams Patent Locks Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1436
Post-Murphy position:
Nitrigin Eirann Teoranta v Inco Alloys Ltd [1992] 1 WLR 498
(b)
Australia
Early cases followed Pirelli
36
Adoption of discoverability:
Sutherland (above), Deane J at 504-505
Hawkins (above), Deane J at 587-588
Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 (AD)
(see at 65-71)
WA cases:
Pigram v State Housing Commission (1994) 10 SR(WA) 371 (DC)
Ogino v Cameron Chisholm & Nicol Pty Ltd (unreported SC WA,
3 May 1996, CIV 1065 of 1996)
3.
THE POSITION IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
3.1
Canada
City of Kamloops v Nielsen [1984] 2 SCR 2 (SC)
local councils owe duty of care
was economic loss
cause of action accrues on discoverability
Winnipeg Condominium Co No 36 v Bird Construction Co [1995] 1 SCR 85
(SC)
builder’s duty limited to dangerous defects
3.2
New Zealand
Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] 1 NZLR 513 (PC)
local councils owe duty of care
was economic loss
cause of action accrues on discoverability
3.3
Hong Kong
Bank of East Asia Ltd v Tsien Wui Marble Factory Ltd
[2000] I HKLRD 268 (Court of Final Appeal)
See P Handford (2000) 8 Tort L Rev 174
Reading
Handford [5.10.1200] – [5.10.1210]
WALRC 4.17-4.21, 8.16-8.31
A McGee, Limitation Periods, ch 5
N J Mullany, “Limitation of Actions and Latent Damage – An Australian Perspective”
(1991) 54 MLR 216
N J Mullany, “Limitation of Actions – Where Are We Now?” [1993] Lloyd’s MCLQ 34
37
IX: NEGLIGENCE: OTHER ECONOMIC LOSS CASES
1.
DEFECTIVE STRUCTURES:
LIMITATION PERIOD
1.1
Australia
(a)
EXTENDING
OR
CURTAILING
THE
New South Wales
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 51
(b)
South Australia and Northern Territory
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 48
Limitation Act 1981 (NT) s 44
(c)
Australian Capital Territory
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 40
(d)
Building legislation
eg Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW) s 109ZK
1.2
Other jurisdictions
(a)
British Columbia
Limitations Act 1979 (BC) ss 6(3), 8
(b)
England
Latent Damage Act 1986 (UK)
(enacted following Law Reform Committee, Twenty-Fourth Report
(Latent Damage) (1984) Cmnd 9390)
1.3
General reform proposals
Limitations Act 1996 (Alta)
WALRC Report 1997
2.
OTHER CATEGORIES OF ECONOMIC LOSS
Bruce Feldthusen, Economic Negligence (4th ed 2000)
“Liability for Pure Economic Loss: Yes But Why?” (1999) 28 UWAL
Rev 84
38
3.
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
3.1
Early cases
(a)
England
Forster v Outred & Co [1982] 1 WLR 86 (CA)
(loss suffered on signing mortgage documents, not later)
UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corporation [1984] QB 713 (CA)
(loss suffered when company defaulted)
Relationship between Forster and Pirelli:
Dove v Banhams Patent Locks Ltd [1983] 1 WLR 1436 (QB)
DW Moore & Co Ltd v Ferrier [1988] 1 WLR 267 (CA)
(b)
Australia
Jobbins v Capel Court Corporation Ltd (1989) 25 FCR 226 (FC)
(loss suffered on entering transaction)
SWF Hoists & Industrial Equipment Pty Ltd v State Government Insurance
Commission [1990] ATPR 40-583 (Fed Ct)
(loss suffered only when under statutory obligation to pay)
3.2
The High Court decision in Wardley
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 (HC)
(loss suffered not when entered into indemnity, but at time of
fulfillment of contingency)
3.3
Analysis of the proprositions in Wardley
(a)
Forster cases - immediate loss
(b)
Benefit and burden cases
Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd [1997] 1 WLR
1627 (HL) (accrued at time of loan)
(c)
Contingent liability cases
Law Society v Sephton & Co (a firm) [2006] 2 AC 543 (HL)
Commonwealth v Cornwell (2007) 229 CLR 519 (HC)
(d)
Recoupment cases
Doundolakis v Antony Sdrinis & Co [1989] VR 781 (FC)
(accrued when lawyers allowed limitation period to expire - wrong)
Crisp v Blake [1992] ATR 81-158 (SC NSW)
(accrued only on liquidation – right)
Bell v Peter Browne & Co [1990] 2 QB 495 (CA)
(accrued when relied on solicitor’s negligence)
39
Reading
Handford [5.10.1200], [5.10.1220] – [5.10.1230]
WALRC 4.22 ff, 5.16-5.18, 5.30-5.31, 5.44-5.46, 5.51-5.66, 5.70-5.72, 8.16-8.31
A McGee, Limitation Periods, chs 5-6
N J Mullany, “Limitation of Actions and Latent Damage – An Australian View” (1991) 54
MLR 216
N J Mullany, “Reform of the Law of Latent Damage” (1991) 54 MLR 349
N J Mullany, “Limitation of Actions – Where Are We Now?” [1994] Lloyd’s MCLQ 34
40
X: EQUITABLE CLAIMS
1.
INTRODUCTION
Separation of common law and equity jurisdiction prior to Judicature Acts.
The different areas of equity jurisdiction:
- exclusive jurisdiction
- concurrent jurisdiction
- auxiliary jurisdiction
Judicature Act reforms:
Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875 (UK)
Supreme Court Act 1880 (WA)
2.
THE LIMITATION ACTS AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS: THE TRADITIONAL
APPROACH
2.1
The original position
Limitation Acts did not apply to equitable claims
(a)
Application of the Limitation Acts by analogy
Seagram v Knight (1867) LR 2 Ch 628 (CA in Ch)
Knox v Gye (1872) LR 5 HL 656, Lord Westbury at 674
Cohen v Cohen (1929) 42 CLR 91 (HC) (no analogy at law)
(b)
Laches and acquiescence
Mitchell v Homfray (1881) 8 QBD 587 (delay with acquiescence)
Re Jarvis (decd) [1958] 1 WLR 815 (delay with prejudice)
2.2
Extension of Limitation Acts to equitable claims
Real Property Limitation Act 1833 (UK)
Trustee Act 1888 (UK)
2.3
Position in Western Australia under the Limitation Act 1935
(a)
Actions to recover land
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 24
(b)
Mortgages (see XII)
(c)
Trusts (see WALRC 13.24-13.30)
The law prior to 1900
41
The statutory limitation period:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 47
Trustees Act 1900 (WA) s 13
Distinction between express and other trustees:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 25-26
(d)
Deceased estates (see WALRC 13.39)
Devises of land in will: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 4
Legacies of personalty in will: s 32
Intestacy: s 33
Arrears of interest on legacy: s 34
(e)
Accounts
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 38(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) limited to common law
Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106, Megarry VC at 250-252
(f)
Fraud and mistake (see WALRC 13.49-13.51)
Fraud:
Actions for land or rent: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 27
Metacel Pty Ltd v Ralph Symonds Ltd [1969] 2 NSWR 201 (CA)
R v McNeil (1922) 31 CLR 76 (HC), Isaacs J at 99-100
Western Australia v Wardley (1991) 102 ALR 213 (Fed FC), at 236-237
Mistake:
Baker v Courage & Co [1910] 1 KB 56
(g)
Other claims
Preservation of laches and acquiescence: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 28
2.4
Developments elsewhere (see WALRC 13.14-13.20)
(a)
Trusts (see WALRC 13.31-13.38)
(b)
Deceased estates (see WALRC 13.40-13.48)
(c)
Fraud and mistake (see WALRC13.52-13.60)
RB Policies at Lloyds v Butler [1950] 1 KB 76
(d)
Other equitable claims
Preservation of laches and acquiescence – see eg:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 9
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 31
42
Specific performance and injunction excepted – see eg:
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 23
Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) s 5(8)
3.
THE LIMITATION ACTS AND EQUITABLE CLAIMS: THE NEW
APPROACH
3.1
Australian Capital Territory and elsewhere
Uniform Limitation of Actions Act 1931 (Can) s 3(1)(j)
Limitation Act 1975 (BC) s 3(4)
Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) s 11
3.2
The WALRC recommendations
WALRC 13.61-13.78
3.3
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
(a)
General provisions
General limitation period: s 13
Laches and acquiescence: s 80
Extension for fraud: s 38
Equitable actions not analogous to other actions: s 27
(b)
Application to trusts and deceased estates
Trusts:
General limitation period (s 13) applies, also s 38 (fraud)
Will s 27 apply (see below)
Future interest in trust property: s 62
Deceased estates:
Trusts provisions apply (see definition of “trustee”, s 3(1))
(c)
Application to fraud
(d)
Application to mistake, duress and other claims
Reading
WALRC 13.1-13.68, also 4.10
Handford [5.10.270] – [5.10.300], [5.10.1680] – [5.10.1710], [5.10.2240] – [5.10.2260]
R P Meagher, W M C Gummow & J R F Lehane, Equity Doctrines and Remedies
chs 34 and 36
J L Brunyate, Limitation of Actions in Equity (1932)
G N Darby & F A Bosanquet, Statutes of Limitations (1893) Part IV
43
XI: ACTIONS RELATING TO LAND
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General features
Effect of running of period, if person in “adverse possession” – possessor
acquires rights to exclusion of former owner.
1.2
Ancient and modern
Limitation Act 1935 (WA): archaic form of provisions
Other jurisdictions:
 Modern provisions in Vic, Qld, Tas, NSW
 Position in NT and ACT
WALRC proposals (WALRC 14.31-14.55)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA)
1.3
General law land and land under Torrens title (WALRC 14.25-14.26, 14.28)
Transfer of Land Act 1893 (WA)
 s 68: registered proprietor holds land free from all encumbrances
except those noted on register, but subject to any rights under adverse
possession
 s 222: person claiming freehold estate in possession by limitation can
apply to become registered proprietor
McWhirter v Emerson-Elliott [1960] WAR 208
Petkov v Lucerne Nominees Pty Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 163
Other jurisdictions
2.
GENERAL RULES
2.1
Limitation period
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 4, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 19(1), note also
ss 3(2), (4)
Definition of land:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 3, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 3(1)
Handford [5.10.1430]
Applies to equitable estates and interests:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 24, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 61
44
2.2
Accrual rules (WALRC 14.3-14.6)
Dispossession or discontinuance:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5(a), Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 66
Entitlement under will or intestacy:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 5(b), 8, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 67
Assurance other than by will:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5(c), Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 68
Other situations:
Paradise Beach & Transportation Co Ltd v Price-Robinson [1968] AC 1072
(HL)
Handford [5.10.1450]
1.4
The Crown (WALRC 14.14, 14.50)
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 36, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 76, see also s
19(2)
3.
ADVERSE POSSESSION
WALRC 14.7-14.13, Handford [5.10.1460] – [5.10.1520]
3.1
General
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5, final words
Does doctrine of adverse possession apply in WA? (WALRC 14.7)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 65(1)
3.2
Factual possession
Possession only by permission of true owner:
O’Neil v Hart [1905] VLR 107
Rejection of Leigh v Jack (1879) 5 Ex D 264 (CA):
Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran [1990] Ch 623 (CA)
3.3
Intention to possess
Some examples:
McWhirter v Emerson-Elliott, above
Riley v Penttila [1974] VR 547
Nature of intention required:
Ocean Estates Ltd v Pinder [1969] 2 AC 19 (PC)
Buckinghamshire County Council v Moran, above
JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v Graham [2003] 1 AC 419 (HL)
Radley-Gardiner, “Civilised Squatting” (2005) 25 OJLS 727
45
3.4
Effect of adverse possession for statutory period
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 30, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 75
Fairweather v St Marylebone Property Co Ltd [1963] AC 510 (HL)
3.5
Adverse possession must be unbroken
What constitutes effective re-entry:
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 12, 13, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 84
Adverse possessor does not have to complete full period self, providing
period continuous:
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 65
3.6
Joint tenancy and tenancy in common
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 14 (no equivalent in Limitation Act 2005 (WA))
4.
FREEHOLD LAND: PARTICULAR PROVISIONS
WALRC 14.15-14.19; Handford [5.10.1530] – [5.10.1570]
4.1
Future interests
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 5(d), 7, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 69
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 20, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 77
4.2
Entailed interests
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 21, 22, 23
(Entails were abolished by Property Law Act 1969)
WALRC 14.51
4.3
Land subject to a trust
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 25-26
No provisions on settled land (abolished in WA) or trust for sale
WALRC 14.52
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 78 (trusts for sale), 73 (settlements) (why?)
4.4
Forfeiture and breach of condition
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 5(e), 6, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 70
46
5.
LEASES AND TENANCIES
WALRC 14.20-14.24; Handford [5.10.1580] – [5.10.16.10]
5.1
Leases for a fixed term
Is adverse possession required?
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 5
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 38(1)
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 65(1)
5.2
Tenancies at will and periodic tenancies
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 9-10, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 72
5.3
Effect of dispossession of tenant
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 11, Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 71 (different)
Surrender of lease to L, acquisition of reversion by T
5.4
Actions to recover arrears of rent
Limitation Act 1935 (WA) ss 34 (lease under seal: s 38(1)(d))
WALRC 14.54
Limitation Act 2005 (WA) s 13 (deeds: s 18)
Reading
WALRC 14.1-14.55
Handford [5.10.1430] – [5.10.1610]
A J Bradbrook and others, Australian Real Property Law (4th ed 2007) ch 17
P O’Connor, “The Private Taking of Land: Adverse Possession, Encroachment by Buildings
and Improvement under a Mistake” (200 ) UWAL Rev
B Edgeworth, “Adverse Possession, Prescription and Their Reform in Australian Law” (2007)
15 APLJ 1
47
XII: MORTGAGES; ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND PART PAYMENT
1.
MORTGAGES
1.1
Introduction
1.2
Three stages of evolution
1.3
The old law in Western Australia: Limitation Act 1935
(a)
Mortgages of land
Action by mortgagor to redeem: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 29
Action by mortgagee to recover principal money: s 32
Distinguish personal covenant to repay: s 38(1)(e)(i) (deed),
s 38(1)(c)(v) (contract)
Action by mortgagee to recover interest: s 34
Action by mortgagee to recover possession: s 35
Action by mortgagee to foreclose: s 35 applies:
Heath v Pugh (1881) 6 QBD 345 (CA)
(b)
Mortgages of personalty
Action by mortgagor to redeem:
Charter v Watson [1899] 1 Ch 175 (no analogy)
Re Stucley [1906] 1 Ch 67 (CA) (laches)
Weld v Petrie [1929] 1 Ch 33 (CA) (laches)
Re Jauncey [1926] Ch 471 (also some land)
Action by mortgagee to recover possession: s 38(1)(c)(iv)
Action by mortgagee to foreclose:
London & Midland Bank v Mitchell [1899] 2 Ch 161 (laches)
Action by mortgagee to recover principal money: s 38(1)(e)(i) (deed),
s 38(1)(c)(v) (contract)
Action by mortgagee to recover interest: s 38(1)(e)(i) (deed),
s 38(1)(c)(i) (debt)
1.4
The new law in Western Australia: Limitation Act 2005
(a)
The direction of reform
WALRC recommendations (WALRC 15.29-15.35)
Land: 15 year ultimate period should apply
Personalty: 2 general principles should apply
AG’s proposals: adopt NSW
48
(b)
Limitation Act 2005
Action by mortgagor to redeem: s 25
Action by mortgagee to recover possession: s 23
Action by mortgagee to foreclose: s 24
Action by mortgagee to recover principal money: s 20
Action by mortgagee to recover interest: ss 21, 22
Application of ss 13 and 18
Reading
WALRC 15.1-15.35
Handford [5.10.1620] – [5.10.1670]
Sykes E I and Walker S, The Law of Securities (5th ed, LBC 1993) ch 19
2.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND PART PAYMENT
2.1
Introduction
Busch v Stevens [1963] 1 QB 1
Need for express or implied promise to pay:
Tanner v Smart (1827) 6 B & C 603, 108 ER 573
Spencer v Hemmerde [1922] 2 AC 507 (HL)
Contrast
Stage Club Ltd v Millers Hotels Pty Ltd (1981) 150 CLR 535 (HC)
Note case law:
Acknowledgment: Handford [5.10.2200]
Part payment: Handford [5.10.2200]
2.2
The old law in Western Australia: Limitation Act 1935
(a)
The different kinds of claim
Personal actions: Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 44(3), and note s 44(1)
Specialty debts: s 44(4)
Arrears of interest: s 38(1), proviso
Actions relating to land: s 15
Mortgages: s 29 (redemption), s 35 (recovering possession)
Actions to recover money charged on land: ss 32, 34
Actions to recover estate of intestate: s 33
(b)
Comparison of rules
Formalities
By whom must be given
To whom must be given
Whether must be given before expiry of limitation period
Whether binds co-contractors: eg ss 44(3), 44(5), 45
49
2.3
2.4
Reform of the law
(a)
First wave of reform: England
(b)
Second wave of reform: New South Wales
The new law in Western Australia: Limitation Act 2005
(a)
Provisions of the Act
(Modelled on Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 54)
Meaning of confirmation: s 46
Limitation period extended by confirmation: s 47
Formal requirement for acknowledgments: s 48
Who has benefit of confirmation: s 49
Who is bound by confirmation: s 50
Effects of certain kinds of confirmation: s 51
`
(b)
Extension of acknowledgment and part payment to all claims
See WALRC 18.36-18.41
Reading
WALRC 18.8-18.54
Handford [5.10.2150] – [5.10.2230]
50
TEACHING AND LEARNING RESPONSIBILITIES
Expected fundamental skills
It is assumed that students have already developed certain basic skills. It is expected that
students have an adequate command of:

English and related communication skills – students are expected to have very high
standard English language skills and to be able to understand and follow the principles
of accepted expression and style.

Information literacy skills – work with computers, whether for word processing or for
legal research, is an important aspect of studying law; students are expected to have
and to further develop the relevant skills.
If you are not well prepared in any of the above areas you should make every effort to remedy
the situation through undertaking additional reading and/or practice. Do not hesitate to ask for
advice from your teacher.
The University’s Student Learning, Language and Research Skills Service offers assistance in
a variety of areas, including writing skills, study skills, examination preparation skills and
stress management. The service is located on the second floor of the Guild Village, south
entrance/exit, and can be contacted by phoning 6488 2423 or 6488 2258 or
http://www.studentservices.uwa.edu.au/ss/learning. The Law Library offers regular classes to
improve research skills
Use of student feedback
Limitation of Actions is regularly evaluated, and feedback from students, whether in the form
of responses to SPOT or SURF surveys or otherwise, is taken into account.
Charter of Student Rights and Responsibilities
The Charter of Student Rights and Responsibilities sets out the fundamental rights and
responsibilities of students and their organisations at UWA. It recognises that excellence in
teaching and learning requires students to be active participants in their educational
experience. It upholds the ethos that in addition to the University's role of awarding formal
academic qualifications to students, the University must strive to instil in all students
independent scholarly learning, critical judgement, academic integrity and ethical sensitivity.
The Charter also recognises that students are central to a dynamic University community. In
doing so, the University recognises the importance of student rights, responsibilities and
opinion and encourages diversity within the student body.
For the full text of the charter, please refer to
www.secretariat.uwa.edu.au/home/policies/charter
51
Student Guild contact details
The University of Western Australia Student Guild
35 Stirling Highway
Crawley WA 6009
Phone: (+61 8) 6488 2295
Facsimile: (+61 8) 6488 1041
E-mail: enquiries@guild.uwa.edu.au
Website: www.guild.uwa.edu.au
GENERAL RULES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR ALL LAW UNITS
The Law School has a range of rules, policies and procedures that apply to all units unless
expressly varied by the unit coordinator. They should be read in conjunction with this unit
outline. A summary of the general rules, policies and procedures can be found at
http://www.lawstudents.law.uwa.edu.au
or in hard copy available from the Law School office, ground floor, Law Link Building.
As the rules, policies and procedures are updated from time to time, students should ensure
that they consult the latest version. The version applicable to this unit is the January 2008
edition.
The summary of the general rules covers the following:
General
 Ethical scholarship, academic literacy and academic misconduct
 Academic Conduct Essentials (ACE)
 Equity and diversity in the Law School
 Use of inclusive language
 Students with special needs
 Lectopia
 Where to direct your enquiries
 Contacting staff in the Law School
Assignments
 How to submit your assignment
 Obtaining an Assignment Cover Page – the Assignment Cover Page Generator
 Extensions
 Late submission of assignments
 Exceeding word or page limit
 Handing back and collecting assignments
Assessment
 Deferred exams
 Requests for special consideration
 Supplementary exams
 Appeals against academic assessment
 Scaling
52