Ahuja v Chambeyron

In the matter of Ahuja v Chambeyron, the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory was tasked with determining whether the defendants were in breach of the obligations imposed by the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) in relation to providing particulars of the alleged breach of duty of care by the plaintiff. The court found that the defendants had failed to comply with their obligations under sections 51 and 64 of the Act, leading to the plaintiff being unable to properly assess the claims and comply with the obligations imposed by section 61 of the Act. The court ordered the defendants to provide the requested information within two months of the date of the order and suspended the order for payment of costs to permit the parties to make any submissions they may wish in relation to costs.

The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) and the Civil Law (Wrongs) Regulation 2003 (ACT), as well as the purpose of the pre-court procedures imposed by Chapter 5 of the Act. The court held that the combination of these provisions does impose upon a claimant the obligation to provide meaningful particulars of the act or omissions of the respondent said to constitute the breach of the relevant duty of care. The particulars must be sufficient to enable the respondent to understand and assess the prospect that the claimant might succeed in establishing liability in the event of legal proceedings being undertaken.

The court found that the defendants had gone well beyond the limit of the reasonable time allowed for a claimant to obtain the information and report(s) necessary to formulate the claim on liability, and had therefore been, and remained non-compliant with the obligations imposed on them by sections 51 and 64 of the CWLA. The court held that it was appropriate for an order to be made requiring the defendants to remedy their non-compliance, and made an order requiring the defendants to provide the information sought by the plaintiff in the letter from her solicitor dated 24 December 2019, and in particular, the details of the acts and/or omissions said to have constituted the breach of the plaintiff's duty of care.