14 Limitation periods

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "14 Limitation periods"

Transcription

1 14 Limitation periods 14.1 Introduction Limitation periods are the time limits within which legal proceedings must be commenced. They are set out in legislation in each state or territory in Australia. The legislation is sometimes referred to as the statute of limitations. Through private sessions, public hearings and submissions, many survivors, survivor advocacy and support groups and academics have told us that limitation periods are a significant, sometimes insurmountable, barrier to survivors pursuing civil litigation. Most limitation periods that apply under state legislation for personal injury actions are three years. For a child who is injured, these periods usually do not commence until the child turns 18 years of age. Commencement may be further delayed by other factors, including if the claimant does not have knowledge of essential elements of the claim. However, given what we know about the average length of time that victims of child sexual abuse take to disclose their abuse, standard limitation periods are fairly clearly inappropriate for survivors. A survivor said to us in a private session, commenting on the limitation period: The statute is designed for someone who has tripped over in K-Mart, it is not designed for victims of child sexual abuse. Although state and territory legislation often allows limitation periods to run from a time later than when the injury itself occurred or to be extended by a court s exercise of discretion, the existence of limitation periods creates significant barriers for many survivors. They create the risk of lengthy litigation sometimes years of litigation about whether or not the claim can be brought. This involves substantial legal costs without any consideration of the merits of the case. Many survivors and survivor advocacy and support groups have told us that this risk is enough to prevent many survivors from commencing civil litigation Existing limitation periods Limitation periods are prescribed by state and territory legislation. That legislation typically determines the limitation period for a particular action depending on the nature of that action for example, an action for damages for personal injury or an action based on some other tortious claim. Survivors who seek to commence civil litigation against institutions will be subject to the limitation periods that apply to personal injury actions. While all states and territories make some provision for extending their basic limitation periods in some circumstances, there is great variety in the particular provisions across Australia. In his submission in response to Issues paper 5 Civil litigation, Associate Professor Mathews submitted: [t]here is no uniform approach across Australia and the laws differ substantially. This complexity 434 Redress and Civil Litigation

2 complicates matters for plaintiffs generally, and even more so for those in child sexual abuse claims. It also makes it difficult to synthesise even basic propositions Key elements in the various limitation periods can be summarised as follows: Length of limitation period: Most jurisdictions have set the relevant limitation period at three years. When the limitation period commences: In some jurisdictions, the limitation period begins from the time of the tortious conduct (for example, the sexual abuse), while in others it begins from when the claimant first knows of the injury or from when the claimant could have known of the injury. Application to children: In most jurisdictions, the limitation period does not begin until the child turns 18. In some states, this applies only if the child did not have a parent or guardian, although there is a further extension if the child had a close relationship with the defendant or the defendant was a close associate of the child s parent or guardian. Suspension for a disability: All jurisdictions provide for suspending, or lengthening, the limitation period to account for periods when the claimant was under a disability, although they differ in what they recognise as a relevant disability. Circumstances of extension: All jurisdictions provide for the limitation period to be extended, but the circumstances in which this may be done vary significantly between jurisdictions. Whether there is a long stop : Some jurisdictions include a long stop provision that applies an absolute time bar. For example, the limitation period might be three years from when the claimant first knows of the injury, but it is subject to a long stop of 12 years from the date of the abuse. A detailed description of relevant current limitation periods in each jurisdiction is in Appendix O to this report Limitation periods and institutional child sexual abuse Barrier to commencing proceedings Many survivors, survivor advocacy and support groups, lawyers and academics have told us that the existence of limitation periods acts as a significant barrier to survivors being able to commence civil litigation. They have told us that, although state and territory legislation often allows limitation periods to run from a time later than when the sexual assault itself occurred or to be extended by a court s exercise of discretion, the existence of limitation periods may still create significant barriers for survivors. Many survivors who consider pursuing civil litigation would already be well outside the basic limitation period for personal injury Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 435

3 claims. Some might have good grounds to support an application for an extension of time; however, many may be advised that their claims are too late. A number of survivors have told us in private sessions that they have been given legal advice that they cannot commence civil litigation because of the relevant limitation period. In Case Study 7 on the Parramatta Training School for Girls and the Institution for Girls in Hay, we heard evidence that some survivors had tried to start civil claims for damages against the State of New South Wales but that these claims did not go ahead, mainly because of limitation period issues and the cost of litigation. One witness, Ms Wendy Patton, said she contacted Gerard Malouf & Partners in 2005 and started a claim. Until then, she felt she could not face talking publicly about her experiences, as she was disempowered and ashamed. She said that her claim eventually failed because it was outside the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse and she could not afford the court costs to continue to trial The report of Case Study 7 also summarised relevant evidence about a possible group claim as follows: In 2007, Gerard Malouf & Partners represented a group of around 40 plaintiffs in a claim against the State. The group sought compensation for abuse sustained in the State s care. Ms Chard and Ms Robb were both involved in this claim. However, it never went ahead because the lawyers advised that it would be unsuccessful under the statute of limitations Ms Stone said she was contacted by Gerard Malouf & Partners to join a 2007 class action against the State relating to the Hay Institution. However, her file was transferred in 2008 and she could not get in contact with her new lawyer. Ms Stone then contacted Shine Lawyers in 2012, but they told her that she could not file a claim as her limitation period had closed [References omitted.] Impact of limitation periods on proceedings Survivors who commence proceedings against institutions face the risk that the institutions will raise the limitation period issue and object to any extension. These preliminary issues may take considerable time even years to resolve and may involve substantial legal costs. In Case Study 11, we heard evidence of the various proceedings that Slater and Gordon commenced on behalf of a number of claimants who were former residents in the Congregation of Christian Brothers Western Australian institutions. In August 1993, proceedings were commenced in New South Wales on behalf of some 240 claimants who sought damages from the Christian Brothers and 436 Redress and Civil Litigation

4 other defendants for physical, sexual or psychological abuse at the institutions in the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. In November 1993, similar proceedings were commenced in Victoria for 23 claimants who lived in Victoria Slater and Gordon commenced the proceedings in New South Wales and Victoria so that it could avoid the Western Australian limitation laws At the time, the limitation period in Western Australia was six years from the date of the tort (meaning six years from the date of the abuse) and could not be extended In January 1994, the defendants applied to the Supreme Court of Victoria for orders that the Victorian proceedings be stayed or cross-vested meaning transferred to the Supreme Court of Western Australia. In June 1994, the Supreme Court of Victoria ordered that the proceedings be transferred to Western Australia In August 1994, after the transfer of the Victorian proceedings to Western Australia, Slater and Gordon applied to the Supreme Court of Western Australia for orders that that Court would apply the procedural laws of Victoria, including the Victorian limitation period. The judge in Western Australia dismissed the applications and ordered that Western Australian procedural laws should apply to the proceedings. This had the effect that the Western Australian proceedings could not continue An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused. The New South Wales proceedings were still on foot. Further preliminary matters concerning the appropriate defendant were dealt with during The limitations issue was not determined in New South Wales. Rather, various interlocutory matters were argued and the proceedings were then settled in mid-1996 by the establishment of a trust fund of $3.5 million for payments to claimants. There was provision for limited lump-sum payments and other needs-based payments. In addition, $1.5 million was paid towards Slater and Gordon s legal costs and disbursements. The Christian Brothers legal costs and disbursements totalled about another $1.1 million The summary of events reflects the difficulties survivors can face. From 1994 to 1996, these various proceedings involved interlocutory, or preliminary, hearings in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia; one appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal; and three applications for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The underlying claims of abuse were not heard or determined on their merits on any of these occasions We heard evidence from a number of survivors, some of whom had participated in the Slater and Gordon proceedings. Mr Clifford Walsh gave the following evidence: What I couldn t understand is how the Christian Brothers could raise a limitation defence. We were kids. It seemed to me that we couldn t do anything about the abuse when it was happening, and by the time we were able as a group to do something about it, in particular being in the right mental state to do so, we were told it was too late. We were just being abused all over again Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 437

5 In Case Study 19 on the Bethcar Children s Home in New South Wales, we heard evidence about the impact of limitation periods in litigation brought against the State of New South Wales. In 2008, 15 former residents of Bethcar Children s Home commenced proceedings against the state in the District Court of New South Wales. They sought damages for sexual and other abuse that they alleged they had suffered whilst residents at Bethcar. The proceedings were finally resolved nearly six years later, in February 2014, following a mediation in late In this period, the substance of the claims of sexual and other abuse was not heard or determined on its merits by the Court. Rather, both the claimants and the State took various interlocutory steps and filed procedural motions during this period. The limitation issue was litigated in the following steps. In February 2009, the plaintiffs solicitors filed a notice of motion seeking a declaration that at all material times each of the plaintiffs was under a disability within the meaning of section 52 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (thereby suspending the running of time under that Act) and in the alternative that the limitation period be extended In 2011, the State filed affidavits for the purposes of defending the plaintiffs motion. The affidavits were sworn by an investigator retained by the State s solicitors. They referred to a number of witnesses who were deceased, a number who were alive but unavailable to give any evidence at all and a number who were alive but unable to give relevant evidence. In February 2012, the State filed a notice of motion seeking a permanent stay of the proceedings The State s counsel described the rationale for the application as follows: The rationale for such an application is that the effluxion of time since the events giving rise to the plaintiffs claims has resulted in the deterioration of evidence upon which the State would otherwise have relied in its defence of the substantive proceedings, with the consequence that a fair hearing is no longer possible The plaintiffs motion was fixed for hearing later in February 2012, but this hearing date was vacated to allow the plaintiffs to put on evidence in reply to the State s affidavits and so that both the plaintiffs limitation period motion and the State s permanent stay motion could be heard together The plaintiffs filed their evidence in reply to the State s affidavits in May 2012 and the two motions came on for hearing in the District Court on 12 November The motions were heard over three days, at the end of which they were stood over part heard The State s solicitors formed the view that it had become increasingly clear during the course of the hearing that the judge would find in favour of the plaintiffs on the limitation motions Instructions were sought to withdraw the limitation defence and, in December 2012, the State withdrew that defence In summary, the resolution of the limitation period issue took more than three years. 438 Redress and Civil Litigation

6 It was ultimately resolved by the State withdrawing its limitation defence without the limitation period issue being determined by the Court. There was no hearing or determination of the merits of the case by a court during the almost six years in which the litigation was on foot. We will publish our report on Case Study 19 shortly. In Case Study 8 on Towards Healing, we heard evidence about Mr John Ellis s successful application to extend time to commence proceedings against Cardinal George Pell, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney, and Father Aidan Duggan in 2004 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr Ellis sought an extension of time under one of the exceptions in the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), which allowed an extension if a material fact relating to the cause of action was unknown until after the expiration of the limitation period. Mr Ellis also had to persuade the Court that it was just and reasonable to extend the time, which required consideration of whether there was any prejudice to the defendants that would make a fair trial of the plaintiff s action not possible. Acting Justice Patten found that Mr Ellis did not have the means of knowing the nature and extent of the personal injury caused by Father Duggan s alleged sexual abuse which he accepted was a material fact until Mr Ellis s consultation with a counsellor in September His Honour extended the limitation period for the causes of action pleaded against the Trustees but dismissed the action against Cardinal Pell on the basis that he was not a proper defendant. While finding that the Trustees and Archbishop would be prejudiced if time was extended, his Honour held that the evidence established that there could be a fair trial of the action. Although some evidence may be lost because of the passage of time, there would nevertheless be people who could attest to Mr Ellis s service as an altar boy some 30 years previously and to the systems, if any, in place at Bass Hill and elsewhere to protect persons such as altar boys from the sort of conduct alleged against Father Duggan Apart from the consideration of these issues in case studies, the following three cases provide further examples of how limitation periods may be dealt with in institutional child sexual abuse matters and the competing considerations that may arise in determining whether or not to grant an extension of time. Hopkins v Queensland An extension of time was refused in Hopkins v Queensland 1059 in the District Court of Queensland in The claimant, born in 1974, alleged that, between 1984 and 1987, she was sexually abused by the foster father who the Queensland Department of Families had placed her with. She argued that the department was negligent and in breach of statutory duty for not removing her from the foster family in 1986 after she made a complaint to a child care officer about emotional abuse. The claimant suffered the abuse as a child, so the limitation period expired in 1998 six years after she turned 18 years of age However, she commenced her claim in Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 439

7 The judge who heard the motion (McGill DCJ) declined to extend the limitation period. Under the relevant Queensland legislation, a court may extend time if a material fact of a decisive character relating to the right of action was not within the means of knowledge of the applicant and there is evidence to establish the right of action Time can only be extended to one year after the material fact comes within the applicant s means of knowledge. The claimant argued that it was only in 2003 that she became aware, from a psychiatric report, of the psychiatric injury she had suffered and it was only in 2002 that she had obtained her departmental file from the Department of Families and so became aware that department employees possessed information that ought to have caused them to remove her from her foster placement. McGill DCJ held that neither of these were material facts. In relation to the psychiatric report, his Honour said that the claimant had suffered, and was aware of, symptoms, including depression and flashbacks to the abuse, from the time of the abuse 1062 and that the claimant was aware, or should have been aware, that these symptoms were persisting and sufficiently serious to justify a claim for damages The report indicated the particular psychiatric condition these symptoms represented, but the judge said that, of itself, this was not material In relation to the departmental file, the judge said that the claimant was already aware of much of the information in the file Regarding the information that the claimant had not been previously aware of, his Honour said that the fact that the department had this information was material but not decisive, because, on the standards of 1986, it would have been unlikely to be reasonable for the department to remove the claimant from her foster father on the basis of such information His Honour also said that, even if the requirement relating to a material fact of a decisive character had been satisfied, it would not have exercised its discretion to extend the limitation period because of real prejudice to the defendant in being required now to defend this action His Honour referred to the difficulty the department had experienced in locating the child care officers who had dealt with the claimant s case and how the officers who could be located recollected few details of the claimant His Honour said that, if an extension were granted, the focus of the case would be likely to be on what was the appropriate standard of care, and what responses were dictated by that standard at the relevant time The fact that the passage of time can make it more difficult properly to apply the standards of the time when assessing questions of negligence pointed against granting an extension Finally, his Honour said the passage of time would also make it very difficult to assess whether any failure of the department caused the applicant s psychiatric condition or if this condition would have appeared anyway In this case, the claimant gave evidence that the reason that she had not made earlier complaints to police or commenced proceedings earlier was that, as a coping mechanism, she had been trying to avoid 440 Redress and Civil Litigation

8 thinking about the abuse. His Honour said that any understandable reluctance of the plaintiff to pursue this matter earlier was not a factor that the extension of time provisions were intended to overcome Rundle v Salvation Army (South Australia Property Trust) The Supreme Court of New South Wales granted an extension of time in Rundle v Salvation Army (South Australia Property Trust) 1073 in The claimant, who was born in 1952, had been put into the care of The Salvation Army (South Australian Property Trust) and placed at a boys home. He alleged that he was sexually assaulted there between 300 and 400 times in the period 1960 to 1965 by an officer of the property trust and other boys. Although the claim was commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, South Australian law applied. Because the alleged assaults occurred when he was a child, the limitation period expired three years after he turned 21 years of age This meant that the limitation period expired in The claimant commenced his claim in He argued that The Salvation Army was negligent in its supervision of the boys home, vicariously liable for the sexual assaults and in breach of a fiduciary duty to him. The judge (Simpson J) granted an extension of the limitation period. Under the relevant South Australian legislation, a court could extend time to one year after the time when the claimant became aware of facts material to [his or her] case so long as in all the circumstances of the case it is just to grant the extension. The legislation directed attention to what the claimant did know and not what he or she should have known. Her Honour accepted as material facts that the claimant s capacity for work had been reduced by 60 to 70 per cent because of his psychiatric disability, that the correct entity to sue was The Salvation Army (South Australian Property Trust) and that certain personality features of the applicant amounted to a disability caused by his experiences at the boys home The applicant only became aware of these facts within the year before he commenced his claim Her Honour said it did not matter that from an earlier stage he may have had a sense of grievance which he thought should be resolved by a monetary compensation because any such sense was different from actual awareness of material facts As for whether it was just to grant an extension of time, the Court held that the test to apply was whether the delay made the chances of a fair trial unlikely Justice Simpson said that it was not insignificant that The Salvation Army had undertaken extensive investigations but was unsuccessful in seeking the claimant s high school records or information about his employment history and had had only limited success in investigating individuals that the claimant had named However, her Honour was concerned that two solicitors for The Salvation Army had given misleading impressions in failing to refer to significant information they had in fact been able to obtain Her Honour also said that, in a future trial, The Salvation Army s inability to obtain material would Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 441

9 be relevant to the assessment of credibility and evidence Her Honour concluded that The Salvation Army was not precluded from mounting an adequate defence and therefore she extended time The New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed The Salvation Army s appeal, holding that the first instance judge did not make any error in assessing whether granting an extension was just The case later settled. A, DC v Prince Alfred College Incorporated An extension of time was refused on various grounds in A, DC v Prince Alfred College Incorporated 1085 in the Supreme Court of South Australia in February The plaintiff alleged that, as a 12-year-old boarder at the college in 1962, he was sexually abused by a housemaster of the boarding house, Dean Bain, on a number of occasions at the school and elsewhere for a period of up to eight months. The plaintiff claimed that the college was liable for consequent personal injury, loss and damage There was a dispute about whether the plaintiff would be granted an extension of time to bring the claim. The plaintiff s claim was lodged on 4 December Although there had been several amendments to the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) since 1962, on the face of section 36 of the Act the plaintiff s claim had to be commenced within three years of attaining the age of 21 years (17 July 1970) The plaintiff pursued various arguments as to why his cause of action did not arise until later than 1970 and why time should be extended. The plaintiff relied on a section of the Limitation of Actions Act that allows an extension of time if the plaintiff could show that he was under a legal disability. If a legal disability could be shown then the time for bringing the action would be extended by the length of the period or periods during which the disability existed (although not for more than 30 years from when the right to bring the action arose) The plaintiff argued that time for bringing the action started from when he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder in August 1996; therefore, the time could be extended for up to 30 years from that date The judge (Vanstone J) did not find that the plaintiff suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder from Instead, the Court favoured evidence that the disorder had been with the plaintiff for many years, in varying degrees of intensity, since 1962 and that it had not occurred within the 12 months or so before August 1996 (as required by the Act) In the alternative, the plaintiff argued that the Court should use its general power under the Limitation of Actions Act to extend the time if there were material facts to the plaintiff s case that were not known (and that the action was commenced within 12 months after ascertainment of those facts by the plaintiff) or where the plaintiff s failure to commence the action resulted from representations or conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff argued that the following 442 Redress and Civil Litigation

10 two facts were not known to him before December 2007: His treating psychiatrist expressed the opinion that the plaintiff would not make a full recovery Bain had been convicted in 1954 for gross indecency, seven years before he was employed by the college The plaintiff said he did not learn this until during the sentencing of Bain in the District Court in December The plaintiff also argued that, by encouraging the boarders never to speak of Bain s wrongdoing, the defendant s conduct caused the plaintiff to supress the trauma of Bain s abuse for several decades. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant s failure to provide counselling and its failure to report Bain to the police resulted in the plaintiff s failure to disclose the abuse and to take legal action earlier In relation to the material facts said not to be known by the plaintiff, her Honour accepted that the plaintiff only appreciated the permanency of his illness in December 2007 from his psychiatrist s prognosis and that this was material to the case because of its effect on the issue of damages recoverable by the plaintiff against the defendant Her Honour did not accept that the plaintiff did not know about Bain s conviction before December 2007 because it was discussed openly in Bain s trial in October 2007, which the plaintiff attended Her Honour was not satisfied that the failure to institute the action in a timely manner was caused by the conduct of the defendant Finally, in considering whether to exercise the general power to extend the time under the Limitation of Actions Act, the court must be satisfied that in all the circumstances of the case it is just to do so Justice Vanstone was not satisfied that the court should grant the extension of time in circumstances in which it found that the plaintiff had delayed commencing proceedings since Her Honour found that, at that time, the plaintiff had explored the possibility of suing the school and had only sued Bain Her Honour also found actual prejudice to the defendant because of the death or ill health of a number of the critical witnesses and that there had been much loss of evidence and materials since 1996, when the plaintiff could have brought his claim The plaintiff has sought leave to appeal this decision to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia Competing considerations Limitation periods may be justified on a number of grounds. Limitation periods may: prevent and discourage people with claims from sleeping on their rights and encourage them to institute proceedings as soon as it is reasonably possible to do so avoid the difficult questions of proof for example, in relation to missing documentary trails or the weak recollections of witnesses that arise when a long period of time elapses between the injury and determination of the claim Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 443

11 prevent oppression to a defendant by allowing an action to be brought long after the circumstances giving rise to it have passed create certainty by recognising the status quo that presently exists between parties and give certainty to a potential defendant that a possible case against it is closed Limitation periods may also be justified as providing some certainty to insurers. In some cases, these assertions are appropriate. In many personal injury cases, it will be desirable to resolve claims quickly not just to give the defendant certainty and to ensure evidence is not lost but also to ensure that the claimant receives any damages as soon as possible so that the claimant can take steps to make good their injury or loss. However, in some circumstances, limitation periods operate unreasonably to deny claimants access to justice. As discussed in the Consultation Paper, the delay in a survivor s capacity to report child sexual abuse, particularly when it occurs in an institutional context, is now well known Many survivors are unable to disclose their abuse until well into adulthood Analysis of our early private sessions revealed that, on average, it took survivors 22 years to disclose the abuse. Men took longer than women to disclose abuse These delays are not surprising. It is common for survivors who were abused in an institutional context to tell us that they were unable to report the criminal acts of a person who had authority over them. Their compromised psychological position often means they wrongly blame themselves for the abuse and are grossly embarrassed and ashamed, all of which make it difficult for them to tell anyone about the abuse for many years. When survivors are able to disclose their abuse, their first needs may be counselling and psychological care and the assistance provided through various support services. They might also wish to report to police and consider options for seeking justice through the criminal law. It cannot be assumed, or expected, that considering whether to commence civil litigation will be their first priority. If a claimant does not know that they may have a claim or they face substantial psychological barriers in disclosing the essential elements of their claim, it makes little sense to talk of them sleeping on their rights. Even if the limitation period is relaxed, the interests of the defendant are protected by the court s jurisdiction to stay proceedings if any delay has made the chances of a fair trial unlikely The court s jurisdiction to stay proceedings was the subject of evidence in Case Study 19 on the Bethcar Children s Home, as indicated above. We will publish our report on Case Study 19 shortly Options for reform In our private roundtables and other discussion, we consulted a number of survivor advocacy and support groups, institutions, governments, academics and insurers on possible reforms to civil litigation. 444 Redress and Civil Litigation

12 On the whole, attendees supported reform of limitation periods. A range of views were expressed in the submissions to Issues paper 5 Civil litigation and in our private roundtables and consultations. While some submissions argued that limitation periods should be retained and opposed increased discretion for courts to extend them, many submissions and attendees at our consultations argued that limitation periods should be removed altogether, including retrospectively. Others argued that limitation periods should be retained but they should be made much longer than they are currently. The key issues that we identified in the consultation process were: Should the limitation period for claims for damages for personal injury involving allegations of criminal child sexual abuse be removed altogether or retained but extended to better reflect the time survivors take to disclose their abuse? Should any changes apply prospectively only or retrospectively? The Consultation Paper outlined two options for reform: removing the limitation period altogether substantially extending the limitation period In the Consultation Paper we particularly sought submissions on the options for reforming limitation periods and whether any changes should apply retrospectively Victorian reforms to limitation periods Exposure draft Bill The Consultation Paper gave an overview of the Victorian Government s response at that time to the Parliament of Victoria s Family and Community Development Committee report, Betrayal of trust: Inquiry into the handling of child abuse by religious and other non-government organisations (the Betrayal of Trust report) in relation to limitation periods The committee recommended that limitation periods for criminal child abuse should be abolished It also considered that the removal of limitation periods should apply retrospectively The Victorian Government accepted the recommendations of the committee and on 24 October 2014 the Department of Justice of Victoria released an Exposure Draft for the Limitation of Actions Amendment (Criminal Child Abuse) Bill 2014 (Vic). The purpose of the draft Bill was to amend the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 to remove limitation periods that apply to actions in respect of causes of action that relate to death or personal injury resulting from criminal child abuse The exposure draft Bill proposed that changes should apply to physical and sexual abuse. It defined criminal child abuse as follows: criminal child abuse means an act or omission in relation to a person when the person is a minor a. that is physical or sexual abuse; and Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 445

13 b. that could, at the time the act or omission is alleged to have occurred, constitute a criminal offence under the law of Victoria or the Commonwealth. The exposure draft Bill proposed that a new section 27P be inserted into the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) titled No limitation period for certain actions. The section would allow an action for personal injury founded on criminal child abuse to be brought at any time. The section made it clear that this removal of the limitation period would apply both prospectively and retrospectively, since the provision applies whether the act or omission alleged to have resulted in the death or personal injury occurs before, on or after the commencement of section 5 of the Limitation of Actions Amendment (Criminal Child Abuse) Act For claims by dependants of a deceased survivor, the exposure draft Bill proposed a limitation period of three years from the date the claim was discoverable, with no long-stop period Amending Act The Victorian Government introduced the Limitation of Actions Amendment (Child Abuse) Bill 2015 into the Legislative Assembly of the Victorian Parliament on 24 February The amending Bill was passed by both Houses of Parliament in March and April The Limitation of Actions Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2015 (Vic) will come into operation on 1 September 2015 if it is not proclaimed to commence before that date Like the exposure draft Bill, the amending Act entirely removes the limitation period for bringing relevant claims. New section 27P will allow an action for personal injury founded on death or personal injury resulting from physical abuse or sexual abuse (and related psychological abuse) of a minor to be brought at any time Section 27P will apply to actions regardless of whether or not the action was subject to a limitation period at any time in the past The Victorian Attorney-General informed the Legislative Assembly that the Bill was slightly different from the exposure draft Bill that had been published for consultation The difference between the exposure draft Bill and the amending Act as passed is the nature of the abuse to which the extension of time relates. In the exposure draft Bill, child abuse was defined as physical or sexual abuse that could constitute a criminal offence under the law of the Victoria or the Commonwealth. Under the amending Act, there is no definition of child abuse. Instead, the amending Act will insert a new section 27O(1). It will have the effect that no limitation period will apply to a cause of action if the action: is founded on the death or personal injury of a person resulting from i. an act or omission in relation to the person when the person is a minor that is physical abuse or sexual abuse; and ii. psychological abuse (if any) that arises out of that act or omission Redress and Civil Litigation

14 The explanatory memorandum accompanying the amending Bill stated that this section would allow the court to determine what is physical abuse or sexual abuse by reference to the ordinary meaning of those words. The explanatory memorandum stated that this might be informed by the work of the Family and Community Development Committee s Inquiry into the Handling of Child Abuse by Religious and other Non-Government Organisations and the work of this Royal Commission. It also stated that the meaning of psychological abuse is to be determined by the court in the same manner and that the relevant amendments do not apply to psychological abuse that does not arise from an act or omission that is physical abuse or sexual abuse that the action is founded on For claims by dependants of a deceased survivor, the limitation period will be three years from the date the claim is discoverable, with no long-stop period New section 27Q will apply to actions regardless of the date of death of the deceased and regardless of whether or not the action was subject to a long-stop limitation period at any time in the past The judicial discretion to dismiss or stay proceedings where there is unfairness to the defendant has been expressly retained in the amending Act by insertion of the new section 27R: 27R Interaction with other powers of court Nothing in this Division limits a. in the case of the Supreme Court, the court s inherent jurisdiction, implied jurisdiction or statutory jurisdiction; or b. in the case of a court other than the Supreme Court, the court s implied jurisdiction or statutory jurisdiction; or c. any other powers of a court arising or derived from the common law or under any other Act (including any Commonwealth Act), rule of court, practice note or practice direction. Example This Division does not limit a court s power to summarily dismiss or permanently stay proceedings where the lapse of time has a burdensome effect on the defendant that is so serious that a fair trial is not possible Consideration of reforms to limitation periods in New South Wales On 20 January 2015, the Department of Justice of New South Wales released a discussion paper titled Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse to seek community views on how the Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) operates in relation to claims for child sexual abuse and whether any amendments are required. This was not available in time for us to discuss it in the Consultation Paper. The discussion paper set out options to amend the Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) as follows: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 447

15 a. removing limitation periods from causes of action based on child sexual abuse b. reversing the presumption, so that limitation periods only apply to causes of action based on child sexual abuse if the defendant is able to demonstrate that the proceedings could have been commenced earlier; c. clarifying that the statutory exception for disability includes psychological distress caused by child sexual abuse; d. removing the operation of limitation periods to causes of action based on child sexual abuse in circumstances where there is a criminal conviction based on the same or substantially similar facts; or e. amending the post-2002 provisions relating to minors so that all minors are subject to the same exception, regardless of the characterisation of the perpetrator Submissions were due by 10 March They have not yet been published The discussion paper described option A as completely removing the application of the Limitation Act from a defined class of claims. It stated that the option was based on legislation in British Columbia in Canada that: a. Applies to claims of misconduct of a sexual nature (including, without limitation, sexual assault) that occurred while the claimant was a minor; b. Applies to claims of assault or battery that occurred while the claimant was a minor; and c. Is expressly retrospective, in that it applies whether or not the claimant s right to bring the court proceeding was at any time governed by a limitation period Option A involves a very similar approach to that adopted in the Victorian reforms. The discussion paper described advantages of option A as follows: a. The amendment would be simple to apply; b. There would be no need for plaintiffs to provide proof of their psychological injury at an interlocutory stage, which has the potential to reduce the risk of retraumatisation to plaintiffs; c. The amendment would avoid legal costs being incurred on contested limitation period defences, although the overall impact on the costs of litigation is difficult to predict with certainty; 448 Redress and Civil Litigation

16 d. This option may increase the fairness of settlement negotiations and encourage defendants to focus on the merits of the case The discussion paper also described some disadvantages of option A. One disadvantage was said to be that option A would make it easier to bring claims for historical abuse. These cases might be significantly more difficult for defendants to properly defend and for courts to properly decide. However, the discussion paper also discussed factors that would mitigate these risks, such as the capacity of defendants to apply to the court to stay or strike out the proceedings because a fair trial is not possible. Further, the discussion paper stated that removing the limitation period would not change the fundamental requirement that plaintiffs prove all the elements of the relevant tort on the balance of probabilities in order to bring a successful substantive claim The discussion paper identified other potential impacts of reform, including that there may be some increase in the number of claims commenced or litigated, some increase in successful claims and some increase in legal costs and/or damages as a result of the increase in claims. There may be the indirect impact of a potential increase in insurance premiums, which may therefore affect the accessibility of insurance for smaller non-government organisations that provide services to children. However, the discussion paper stated that the number of additional claims may be affected by other disincentives to litigation such as identifying the correct defendant, establishing liability, finding sufficient evidence, an impecunious defendant and the potentially traumatising impact of adversarial litigation on plaintiffs. Further, an increased number of claims would not necessarily result in an increased number of successful claims because the legislative amendment would not alter the defendant s level of responsibility; it would only ensure the case could be heard. There may also be a saving of legal costs because parties would not incur the costs of arguing the limitation point Extension to the limitation period In our roundtable consultations, we queried whether the limitation period should be removed altogether or whether there should be some balance struck between the interests of both the survivor and institution in having any proceedings brought as soon as possible and the known delays in reporting or disclosing. A possible example of how an extension to the limitation period could be framed is as follows: set a basic limitation period of 12 years from the time the survivor turns 18 years of age after 12 years (that is, after the survivor turns 30 years of age), the claim could proceed unless the institution defendant establishes actual prejudice in defending the proceedings include an absolute bar or long stop of 30 years from the time the survivor turns 18 years of age so that a survivor could not bring civil action against an institution after the survivor turns 48 years of age. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 449

17 14.6 What we have been told Some submissions in response to the Consultation Paper supported the option of extending the limitation period However, a significant majority of submissions supported the removal of limitation periods Many of the submissions to the Consultation Paper supported the Victorian reforms to limitation periods. For example, Care Leavers Australian Network (CLAN) submitted: CLAN wholeheartedly supports the recent Victorian amendments regarding their limitations laws and the civil litigation system. We urge the Royal Commission to recommend that all other states follow in Victoria s footsteps regarding limitations laws. We are of the firm belief that limitation periods need to be reformed and perhaps completely removed when considering matters of child sexual abuse and that these amendments should apply retrospectively. CLAN does not feel that any of the arguments put forward for the justification of limitation periods are enough to outweigh an individual s right to justice and compensation for the abuse they suffered as a child. Australia should follow in the footsteps of other countries around the world and abolish limitation periods for child abuse cases Bravehearts submitted: Bravehearts supports recommendations in the Betrayal of Trust Inquiry in Victoria that civil limitation periods be abolished in relation to criminal child abuse matters, and specifically child sexual assault. Survivors of child sexual assault face enormous barriers in disclosing. The impacts of child sexual assault typically mean that the victim does not disclose until they feel safe to do so, and this frequently does not occur until some time has passed. Having been, in many cases, completely disempowered by an offender, the psychological consequences of child sexual assault have far reaching consequences: shame and guilt can often mean that survivors are unable to disclose until parents have passed away; many survivors are simply not ready to disclose as they may still be processing the psychological trauma and impacts of the sexual assault; and victims may experience posttraumatic stress disorder (essentially this means that a victim is aware of the harm they experienced but disassociate themselves from any reminders of the traumatic event, including litigation). Even if a survivor is aware of the possibility of legal action they may decide that to take such action would revive traumatic memories and may even be destructive and therefore delay proceeding with the matter. 450 Redress and Civil Litigation

18 Given the key characteristics of childhood sexual assault (silence, secrecy, shame and delayed disclosure) it is not appropriate for limitation periods to apply to proceedings related to criminal child abuse matters, such as child sexual assault and associated damages. It is equally inappropriate for limitation periods to apply where the respondent(s) is an institution, an employee of the institution, or Government and the claim is one of negligence in relation to child sexual assault, as where the respondent is themselves the alleged perpetrator The Australian Lawyers Alliance referred to the Victorian exposure draft Bill and submitted: This approach, similar to that of British Columbia, has very considerable advantages. The trauma and expense of litigation to obtain an extension of time or establish a disability is removed The Australian Lawyers Alliance further submitted that the Victorian reforms should apply to the following causes of action: In our view, sexual or physical abuse or associated psychological injury should be included. Sheer physical abuse can lead to devastating trauma and there is ample evidence of this in cases such as Rundle. Beatings, deprivation of food and warmth in an orphanage were clearly at least as causative of psychological injury as anything else. Separating out sexual and physical injury would be wholly inappropriate in these circumstances, as would any attempt to exclude the psychological consequences of either sexual or physical abuse. There does seem to us to be a case for excluding pure psychological injury (without sexual or physical abuse) since the difficulties of proof, uncertainties of diagnosis and risk of injustice to defendants seem to us to outweigh the advantages of that further change [Reference omitted.] The Australian Lawyers Alliance also submitted that the reform should be retrospective in operation In his submission in response to the Consultation Paper, Associate Professor Mathews submitted: In each State and Territory, time limits should be removed for civil claims arising from acts constituting institutional child sexual abuse, and this should apply retrospectively, in line with the approach adopted by Canadian jurisdictions, by Victoria s Limitation of Actions Amendments (Criminal Child Abuse) Bill 2015, and as suggested by Option A of the 2015 New South Wales Discussion Paper on Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse Associate Professor Mathews submitted that the primary advantage of this reform would be to provide survivors of institutional child sexual abuse with access Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 451

Discussion Paper - Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse

Discussion Paper - Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Our ref: Injury:JElw:942619 25 March 2015 Mr Andrew Cappie-Wood Secretary Department of Justice GPO Box 6 SYDNEY NSW 2001 By email: justice.policy@agd.nsw.gov.au Dear

More information

ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS

ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND JUSTICE ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS June 2013 Legal Policy Division Department of the Attorney-General and Justice

More information

A Guide for Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors

A Guide for Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors You are not alone. It was not your fault. You have courage. You have choices. You have power. We re here to help. A Guide for Childhood Sexual Abuse Survivors Breaking the silence. Raising Awareness. Fighting

More information

Discussion Paper Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse. January 2015

Discussion Paper Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse. January 2015 Discussion Paper Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse January 2015 1 State of New South Wales through the Department of Justice, 2015. This work may be freely reproduced and distributed

More information

GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS

GADSBY WICKS SOLICITORS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS EXPLANATION OF LEGAL TERMS Affidavit: After the event litigation insurance: Application notice: Bar Council: Barrister: Basic Charges: Before the Event Legal Expenses Insurance: Bill of costs: Bolam test:

More information

12 May 2014. Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001. By Email to: info@alrc.gov.

12 May 2014. Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001. By Email to: info@alrc.gov. 12 May 2014 Geoff Bowyer T 03 9607 9497 F 03 9607 5270 president@liv.asn.au Professor Barbara McDonald Commissioner Australian Law Reform Commission GPO Box 3708 Sydney NSW 2001 By Email to: info@alrc.gov.au

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,

More information

SEXUAL ABUSE THE RESPONSE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY

SEXUAL ABUSE THE RESPONSE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY SEXUAL ABUSE THE RESPONSE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF SYDNEY CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: Justice and Healing... 4 Four key principles... 5 The victims of sexual abuse are our first priority. Preventing abuse and

More information

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation

Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT. Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter L-12. Current as of December 17, 2014. Office Consolidation Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza

More information

Victims of Crime (Statutory Compensation) Regulations 2004

Victims of Crime (Statutory Compensation) Regulations 2004 Version: 21.10.2004 South Australia Victims of Crime (Statutory Compensation) Regulations 2004 under the Victims of Crime Act 2001 Contents 1 Short title 2 Commencement 3 Interpretation 4 Requirements

More information

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95

Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Resolution) Act 2007 No 95 New South Wales Motor Accidents Compensation Amendment (Claims and Dispute Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 No 41 2 4 Amendment of other

More information

Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Limitation Act 1974 to make it easier for a person suffering a latent disease to take action.

Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Limitation Act 1974 to make it easier for a person suffering a latent disease to take action. SECOND READING SPEECH Limitation Amendment Bill 2013 Mr Speaker, this Bill amends the Limitation Act 1974 to make it easier for a person suffering a latent disease to take action. The time limit within

More information

Submission to the NSW Department of Justice Discussion Paper, Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse

Submission to the NSW Department of Justice Discussion Paper, Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse Submission to the NSW Department of Justice Discussion Paper, Limitation periods in civil claims for child sexual abuse 24 March 2015 Sophie Farthing, Senior Policy Officer Level 7, 173-175 Phillip Street,

More information

Victims of Crime (Compensation) Regulations 2003

Victims of Crime (Compensation) Regulations 2003 Historical version: 18.12.2003 to 5.5.2004 Regulations disallowed South Australia Victims of Crime (Compensation) Regulations 2003 under the Victims of Crime Act 2001 Contents 1 Short title 2 Commencement

More information

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid

Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES. Last Amended: 1 July 2006. Manual of Legal Aid Chapter 6B STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES Last Amended: 1 July 2006 Manual of Legal Aid TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 6B - STATE ELIGIBILITY GUIDELINES GENERAL...3 PROVISION OF LEGAL ASSISTANCE...3 GENERAL GUIDELINES

More information

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth Criminal Injuries Compensation By Helen Porter, Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation. INTRODUCTION In this

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and

More information

Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002

Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002 Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002 Act No. 24 of 2002 Queensland PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT 2002 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section Page CHAPTER 1 PRELIMINARY PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Short

More information

Limitation of Liability

Limitation of Liability Limitation of Liability Submission to the Attorney-General (Western Australia) July 2000 The Institution of Engineers, Australia Institution of Engineers, Australia 11 National Circuit, Barton, ACT, 2604

More information

The legal process. By Tracey Storey, Solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP

The legal process. By Tracey Storey, Solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP The legal process By Tracey Storey, Solicitor at Irwin Mitchell LLP Introduction The legacy of child abuse can be devastating, and the effects are often felt not only at the time of the abuse but also

More information

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE. - and

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE. - and IN THE COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF EDMONTON Action No. 0403-12898 B E T W E E N : TANYA LABONTE, JESSE STECHYNSKY AND RHONDA MCPHEE Plaintiffs - and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN

More information

Scottish Government Removal of the 3 year limitation period from civil actions for damages for personal injury for in care survivors of historical

Scottish Government Removal of the 3 year limitation period from civil actions for damages for personal injury for in care survivors of historical Scottish Government Removal of the 3 year limitation period from civil actions for damages for personal injury for in care survivors of historical child abuse A response by the Association of Personal

More information

Legal Research Record

Legal Research Record Legal Research Record Summary of problem(s) Design and Dress Limited (DDL) has experienced problems due to the alleged harassment of one of their employees, Susie Baker, by another employee, Stephen Harding

More information

PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS BILL 2002

PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS BILL 2002 1 PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS BILL 2002 EXPLANATORY NOTES General Outline Purpose of legislation The main purpose of this Act is to facilitate the ongoing affordability of insurance through appropriate

More information

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597

ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with

More information

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013

2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order

More information

The Code. for Crown Prosecutors

The Code. for Crown Prosecutors The Code for Crown Prosecutors January 2013 Table of Contents Introduction... 2 General Principles... 3 The Decision Whether to Prosecute... 4 The Full Code Test... 6 The Evidential Stage... 6 The Public

More information

Mr Roderick Best General Counsel Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney NSW 2001

Mr Roderick Best General Counsel Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney NSW 2001 4 July 2014 Mr Roderick Best General Counsel Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse GPO Box 5283 Sydney NSW 2001 By email: solicitor@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au Dear Mr

More information

Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 No 7

Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 No 7 New South Wales Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 No 7 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Objects of Act 2 4 Definitions 2 5 Definitions of serious sex offence

More information

Chapter 26. Litigation guardians. CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573

Chapter 26. Litigation guardians. CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573 6 CONTENTS Introduction 570 Current law 570 Community responses 571 The Commission s views and conclusions 573 569 Introduction 26.1 This chapter deals with the ability of substitute decision makers to

More information

July 2015. New Limitation of Actions Act. Q&A p. 1-10 Transition Rules p. 11 Table of Concordance p. 12

July 2015. New Limitation of Actions Act. Q&A p. 1-10 Transition Rules p. 11 Table of Concordance p. 12 July 2015 New Limitation of Actions Act Q&A p. 1-10 Transition Rules p. 11 Table of Concordance p. 12 1 Questions and Answers For the Questions and Answers For the New Limitation of Actions Act While the

More information

Avant welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the Productivity Commission s draft report on Access to Justice Arrangements.

Avant welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the Productivity Commission s draft report on Access to Justice Arrangements. 21 May 2014 Access to Justice Productivity Commission GPO Box 1428 Canberra City ACT 2601 Access to Justice Arrangements Draft Report Avant welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the Productivity

More information

Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2]

Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Bill [AS AMENDED AT STAGE 2] Section CONTENTS PART 1 ABUSIVE BEHAVIOUR Abusive behaviour towards partner or ex-partner 1 Aggravation of offence where abuse

More information

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS

In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS In force as of 15 March 2005 based on decision by the President of NIB ARBITRATION REGULATIONS Contents I. SCOPE OF APPLICATION... 4 1 Purpose of these Regulations... 4 2 Applicability to different staff

More information

CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS

CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS CLAIMS AGAINST TELEPHONE ANSWERING SERVICES: THE TRILOGY OF PREVENTION, HANDLING AND RESOLUTION PART TWO: WHAT TO DO WHEN A CLAIM HAPPENS Martin M. Ween, Esq. Partner Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman

More information

Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection

Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Rule 60A - Child and Adult Protection Scope of Rule 60A 60A.01(1) This Rule is divided into four parts and it provides procedure for each of the following: (c) (d) protection of a child, and other purposes,

More information

Clinical Negligence. Issue of proceedings through to Trial

Clinical Negligence. Issue of proceedings through to Trial Clinical Negligence Issue of proceedings through to Trial Lees Solicitors LLP 44/45 Hamilton Square Birkenhead Wirral CH41 5AR Tel: 0151 647 9381 Fax: 0151 649 0124 e-mail: newclaim@lees.co.uk 1 1 April

More information

PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS

PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS PRACTICE DIRECTION AMENDMENTS The new Practice Direction Case Management Pilot supplementing the Court of Protection Rules 2007 is made by the President of the Court of Protection under the powers delegated

More information

Unfair Dismissal Overview Definitions What is a dismissal? Constructive Dismissal not What is unfair dismissal? unfairly dismissed

Unfair Dismissal Overview Definitions What is a dismissal? Constructive Dismissal not What is unfair dismissal? unfairly dismissed Unfair Dismissal Overview This module contains information on the new unfair dismissal laws and covers off the following matters: Definitions surrounding unfair dismissal The Small Business Fair Dismissal

More information

The Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence

The Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence Evidentiary Issues in Domestic Cases: An Overview Introduction A. Importance of legal representation in cases that involve domestic violence. B. History of protection order laws and implications for evidence.

More information

Clinical Negligence. Investigating Your Claim

Clinical Negligence. Investigating Your Claim www.lees.co.uk Clinical Negligence Investigating Your Claim Lees Solicitors LLP 44/45 Hamilton Square Birkenhead Wirral CH41 5AR Tel: 0151 647 9381 Fax: 0151 649 0124 e-mail: newclaim@lees.co.uk 1 The

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Date of Release: January 31, 1996 No. B934523 Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BETWEEN: ) ) EMMA ESTEPANIAN, by her Guardian ) Ad Litem, SABINA GHAZARIAN ) REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

More information

MAKING A PERSONAL INJURIES CLAIM*

MAKING A PERSONAL INJURIES CLAIM* MAKING A PERSONAL INJURIES CLAIM* GETTING STARTED DO I HAVE A CASE? The first step is to contact one of our experienced personal injuries solicitors and arrange a no obligation consultation. At the initial

More information

Queensland DRUG REHABILITATION (COURT DIVERSION) ACT 2000

Queensland DRUG REHABILITATION (COURT DIVERSION) ACT 2000 Queensland DRUG REHABILITATION (COURT DIVERSION) ACT 2000 Act No. 3 of 2000 Queensland DRUG REHABILITATION (COURT DIVERSION) ACT 2000 Section TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY Page 1 Short title.....................................................

More information

many activities to be undertaken that would not otherwise take place, and is an effective mechanism for pooling and transferring risk.

many activities to be undertaken that would not otherwise take place, and is an effective mechanism for pooling and transferring risk. 9 March 2015 Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Submitted by email: redress@childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au Dear Sir/Madam CONSULTATION PAPER: REDRESS AND CIVIL LITIGATION

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND PROTOCOL FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LITIGATION 1. Practitioners are reminded of the need to bear in mind the overriding objective set out at Order 1 rule 1(a)

More information

Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994

Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994 Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994 Act No. 68 of 1994 Queensland WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT 1994 Section PART 1 PRELIMINARY TABLE OF PROVISIONS Division 1 Title and commencement Page 1 Short

More information

PART 37 TRIAL AND SENTENCE IN A MAGISTRATES COURT

PART 37 TRIAL AND SENTENCE IN A MAGISTRATES COURT Contents of this Part PART 37 TRIAL AND SENTENCE IN A MAGISTRATES COURT When this Part applies rule 37.1 General rules rule 37.2 Procedure on plea of not guilty rule 37.3 Evidence of a witness in person

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Richard v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1290 William Joseph Richard and W.H.M. Date: 20140714 Docket: S024338 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs

More information

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, Part 1

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, Part 1 South Australia CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1978 An Act to provide compensation for injury or, in certain cases, financial loss or grief, suffered in consequence of the commission of offences; to

More information

Advice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction

Advice Note. An overview of civil proceedings in England. Introduction Advice Note An overview of civil proceedings in England Introduction There is no civil code in England; English civil law comprises of essentially legislation by Parliament and decisions by the courts.

More information

Family Law Client Information Package

Family Law Client Information Package Family Law Client Information Package The end of a relationship can be very difficult. In addition to the obvious emotional issues, couples are often faced with challenging financial and legal problems.

More information

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part

FIXED COSTS PART 45. Contents of this Part FIXED COSTS PART 45 PART 45 Contents of this Part I FIXED COSTS Rule 45.1 Scope of this Section Rule 45.2 Amount of fixed commencement costs in a claim for the recovery of money or goods Rule 45.2A Amount

More information

Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87

Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87 New South Wales Witness Protection Act 1995 No 87 Status information Currency of version Current version for 5 October 2012 to date (generated 10 October 2012 at 19:15). Legislation on the NSW legislation

More information

PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT (QLD) 2002 (PIPA): SECTION 30

PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS ACT (QLD) 2002 (PIPA): SECTION 30 Mr Philip Reed Director General Department of Justice and Attorney-General GPO Box 149 BRISBANE QLD 4001 Via email: jane.flower@justice.qld.gov.au 15 March 2012 Dear Mr Reed PERSONAL INJURIES PROCEEDINGS

More information

Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme

Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme Proposed changes to the Comcare scheme Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Cth) Submission to Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment Inquiry into the

More information

Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett

Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett Costs Payable in Personal Injury Claims under the Various Legislative Regimes by Paul Garrett I was asked to deliver a paper in relation to costs which are payable under the various regimes where claimants

More information

child protection child protection child

child protection child protection child child protection child protection child protection child protection child protection child protection child Chapter 4 protection child protection child CONTENTS Current Law and Practice 120 Introduction

More information

LEGAL COSTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION SCHEME

LEGAL COSTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION SCHEME BLAKE DAWSON WALDRON SOLICITORS LEGAL COSTS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION SCHEME February 1997 Workcover Corporation,. Library Worl(Cove _. i00,waymouth Street toz.v.,.;4.'rk:iilatil Adelaide

More information

MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook

MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook MODEL DIRECTIONS FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES (2012) - before Master Roberts and Master Cook Introductory note. These are the Model Directions for use in the first Case Management Conference in clinical

More information

Australian Proportionate Liability Regime

Australian Proportionate Liability Regime Australian Proportionate Liability Regime May 2014 16 NOVEMBER 2011 Curwoods Lawyers Australia Square Plaza Building Level 9, 95 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000 t +61 2 9231 4166 f +61 2 9221 3720 CURWOODS

More information

in the ALRC Discussion Paper relating to solicitors rules (Question 7-2) and consumer protection (Question 11-1) 1).

in the ALRC Discussion Paper relating to solicitors rules (Question 7-2) and consumer protection (Question 11-1) 1). RESPONSE TO THE EQUITY, CAPACITY AND DISABILITY IN COMMONWEALTH LAWS DISCUSSION PAPER 81 Legal Aid NSW submission to the Australian Law Reform Commission July 2014 Legal Aid NSW welcomes the opportunity

More information

Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation Bill Consultation Response by GCC

Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation Bill Consultation Response by GCC Expenses and Funding of Civil Litigation Bill Consultation Response by GCC (A) Speculative Fee Agreements: Q1: Do you think that a lack of cap on speculative fee agreements prevents potential pursuers

More information

Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained

Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained Bill 34 The New Limitation Act: Significant Changes and Transition Issues Explained A Presentation for CLE Employment Law Conference 2013 Pan Pacific Hotel Vancouver, BC May 9, 2013 Carman J. Overholt,

More information

CIVIL LITIGATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE

CIVIL LITIGATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE APPLICATION CIVIL LITIGATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME CONDITIONS OF ASSISTANCE 1. Applications for funding under the Civil Litigation Assistance Scheme can only be submitted through a private legal practitioner

More information

INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED

INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED INFORMATION / FACT SHEET CRIME TO TRIAL PROCESS CRIMINAL COURT HEARINGS EXPLAINED *(Please be advised that this is a general guide only and is by no means an exhaustive summary of all criminal court hearings.

More information

Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings

Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings I N S U R A N C E C A S E N O T E Compliance With Pre-Court Procedures - The Workers Compensation Rehabilitation Act 2003 Post Berowra Holdings The introduction of the pre-court procedures under the Workers

More information

ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD

ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD ATTORNEY GENERAL S GUIDELINES ON PLEA DISCUSSIONS IN CASES OF SERIOUS OR COMPLEX FRAUD A FOREWORD A1. These Guidelines set out a process by which a prosecutor may discuss an allegation of serious or complex

More information

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS

PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS Frequently Asked Questions 1. Can I make a claim? If you have been injured because of the fault of someone else, you can claim financial compensation through the courts. The dependants

More information

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS GUIDANCE Disclaimer In all cases solicitors must ensure that any agreement with a client is made in compliance with their professional duties, the requirements of the SRA and any statutory requirements depending

More information

COMMITTEE ON COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE REVIEW OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO PERSONAL INJURIES LITIGATION

COMMITTEE ON COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE REVIEW OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO PERSONAL INJURIES LITIGATION COMMITTEE ON COURT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE REVIEW OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN RELATION TO PERSONAL INJURIES LITIGATION THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS FEBRUARY 2003 The executive

More information

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION AND OTHER MEASURES) RULES 2015 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT. Explanatory Statement to F2015L02119

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION AND OTHER MEASURES) RULES 2015 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT. Explanatory Statement to F2015L02119 FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT (ARBITRATION AND OTHER MEASURES) RULES 2015 EXPLANATORY STATEMENT 1 Table of Contents 1. GENERAL OUTLINE 4 Schedule 1 Amendments relating to arbitration 4 Schedule 2 Amendments relating

More information

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL 2002

WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL 2002 1 WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND AMENDMENT BILL 2002 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE Objectives of the legislation To provide for miscellaneous amendments to the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996. Reason for the Bill

More information

REPORT STATUTE LAW REVISION COMMITTEE ACTIONS IN TORT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

REPORT STATUTE LAW REVISION COMMITTEE ACTIONS IN TORT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE 1965-66 VICTORIA REPORT FROM THE STATUTE LAW REVISION COMMITTEE UPON ACTIONS IN TORT BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE AND AN APPENDIX Ordered by the Legislative Assembly to be

More information

Queensland. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010

Queensland. Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Queensland Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 Contents Page

More information

Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 2008/09 to 2012/13

Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 2008/09 to 2012/13 Report on Civil Cases in the District Court of Western Australia 28/9 to 212/13 Table of Contents Civil Case Lodgments 1 Civil Writ (CIV) Register Lodgments 2 Originating Summons (CIVO) Register Lodgments

More information

How To Settle A Car Accident In The Uk

How To Settle A Car Accident In The Uk PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation

More information

FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE

FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 33 U.S.C. 3729-33 FALSE CLAIMS ACT STATUTORY LANGUAGE 31 U.S.C. 3729. False claims (a) LIABILITY FOR CERTAIN ACTS. (1) IN GENERAL. Subject to paragraph (2), any person who (A) knowingly presents, or causes

More information

MEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE. 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle?

MEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE. 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle? MEMORANDUM ON OFFERS TO SETTLE 1. What is an Offer to Settle? 2. Why Make an Offer to Settle? 3. How Can it Help to Make an Offer to Settle? The purpose of this memorandum is to assist you in understanding

More information

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001

LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001 1 LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of this Bill is to address the impact of the decision of the High

More information

Proportionate Liability Northern Territory

Proportionate Liability Northern Territory 1. Proportionate liability national approach On 27 February 2004, the national Ministerial forum on Insurance Issues comprising representatives from the Commonwealth, the States, the Northern Territory

More information

I would like to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Ma for. his insightful remarks on the important role of lawyers in

I would like to thank the Honourable Chief Justice Ma for. his insightful remarks on the important role of lawyers in Opening of the Supreme Court of Queensland Saturday 4 August Reply to the Remarks of the Honourable Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma on Duties owed to the court: fact, fiction and continuing relevance I would

More information

IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.2QT66034. 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ. Claimant. Defendant

IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.2QT66034. 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M60 9DJ. Claimant. Defendant 1 0 1 0 1 IN THE MANCHESTER COUNTY COURT No.QT0 1 Bridge Street West Manchester M0 DJ 0 th November B e f o r e:- DISTRICT JUDGE MATHARU COMBINED SOLUTIONS UK Ltd. (Trading as Combined Parking Solutions)

More information

ALRC 75 Costs Shifting who pays for litigation

ALRC 75 Costs Shifting who pays for litigation ALRC 75 Costs Shifting who pays for litigation Contents Terms Of Reference Overview 1. INTRODUCTION This review Access to justice The Commission's review process Costs allocation rules in all Australian

More information

Preliminary Considerations. This chapter will enable you to achieve the following learning outcomes from the CILEx syllabus:

Preliminary Considerations. This chapter will enable you to achieve the following learning outcomes from the CILEx syllabus: Chapter 2: Preliminary Considerations Outline 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Limitation 2.3 Calculating limitation periods 2.4 Viability 2.5 Financing litigation 2.6 Summary Aims of this Chapter This chapter will

More information

COAG National Legal Profession Reform Discussion Paper: Professional Indemnity Insurance

COAG National Legal Profession Reform Discussion Paper: Professional Indemnity Insurance COAG National Legal Profession Reform Discussion Paper: Professional Indemnity Insurance Introduction Professional indemnity insurance is insurance that:... indemnifies professional people accountants,

More information

C.M. Haughey Solicitors Compensation Guide

C.M. Haughey Solicitors Compensation Guide C.M. Haughey Solicitors Compensation Guide www.cmhaugheysolicitors.ie Athena Goddess of Wisdom, Strength and Strategy. When your experience needs our experience About Us C. M. Haughey Solicitors, located

More information

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Policy Statement 1105.1 Effective date: 12/14/2000 Page 2

Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Policy Statement 1105.1 Effective date: 12/14/2000 Page 2 Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia Page 2 III. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY The General Counsel is delegated authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2672 to consider, ascertain,

More information

YOUTH LEGAL CENTRE. Victims compensation. 1 Introduction. 2 Eligibility

YOUTH LEGAL CENTRE. Victims compensation. 1 Introduction. 2 Eligibility YOUTH LEGAL CENTRE Victims compensation 1 Introduction The New South Wales victims compensation scheme allows victims of violent crime to receive: counselling financial compensation injuries suffered payment

More information

LIMITATIONS. The Limitations Act. being

LIMITATIONS. The Limitations Act. being 1 LIMITATIONS c. L-16.1 The Limitations Act being Chapter L-16.1* of The Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2004 (effective May 1, 2005), as amended by the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2007, c.28. *NOTE: Pursuant

More information

Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications

Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications Guidance on making decisions on voluntary erasure applications 1 A doctor may submit an application for voluntary erasure at any point in the fitness to practise process. The procedures for dealing with

More information

Clinical Negligence: A guide to making a claim

Clinical Negligence: A guide to making a claim : A guide to making a claim 2 Our guide to making a clinical negligence claim At Kingsley Napley, our guiding principle is to provide you with a dedicated client service and we aim to make the claims process

More information

Personal Injury Accident Claims 2011 You still need a Solicitor.

Personal Injury Accident Claims 2011 You still need a Solicitor. Personal Injury Accident Claims 2011 You still need a Solicitor. Subsequent to the passing of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003 and the Civil Liability & Courts Act 2004 Brian Morgan wrote

More information

How To Write Health Care Directives Legislation In New Bronwell

How To Write Health Care Directives Legislation In New Bronwell SECOND REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LAW AMENDMENTS Third Session Fifty-sixth Legislative Assembly of the Province of New Brunswick May 12, 2009 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Hon. Mr. Burke, Q.C., Chair

More information

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark

Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,

More information

Murrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05

Murrell v Healy [2001] ADR.L.R. 04/05 CA on appeal from Brighton CC (HHJ Coates) before Waller LJ; Dyson LJ. 5 th April 2001. JUDGMENT : LORD JUSTICE WALLER : 1. This is an appeal from Her Honour Judge Coates who assessed damages in the following

More information

Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim

Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim Your Guide to Pursuing a Personal Injury Claim 2 Contents Introduction... 3 Important things that you must do... 3 In The Beginning... 4 Mitigating your loss... 4 Time limits... 4 Who can claim?... 4 Whose

More information

Compensation for Asbestos-related Diseases in Australia. Luisa Formato Slater & Gordon

Compensation for Asbestos-related Diseases in Australia. Luisa Formato Slater & Gordon Compensation for Asbestos-related Diseases in Australia Luisa Formato Slater & Gordon 1 Introduction Asbestos exposure in Australia occurred as a result of mining, milling, manufacture, product use and

More information

- Contents of this Guide - The Purpose of this Guide 1. Important Disclaimer 1. Special Hardship Orders 2. Special Hardship Orders 3

- Contents of this Guide - The Purpose of this Guide 1. Important Disclaimer 1. Special Hardship Orders 2. Special Hardship Orders 3 - Contents of this Guide - The Purpose of this Guide 1 Important Disclaimer 1 Special Hardship Order vs Restricted License Application 2 Special Hardship Orders 2 Special Hardship Orders 3 When an Application

More information