Baker v Commonwealth
[2002] VSC 471
•24 October 2002
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST
No. 4422 of 2001
| RICHARD JAMES BAKER | Plaintiff |
| V | |
| COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | BONGIORNO J | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 24 October 2002 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 24 October 2002 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Baker v The Commonwealth | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2002] VSC 471 | |
---
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr Downing QC | Hollows Lawyers |
| For the Defendant | Mr Hanks QC | Australian Government Solicitor |
HIS HONOUR:
This matter is the trial of a separate issue raised by the pleadings. In all respects the case is the same as the case of Burk v. the Commonwealth, in respect of which I delivered a judgment on 21 October 2002.[1] The defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, relies upon the same arguments that it put in Burk, and the plaintiff makes no response other than the responses which were made in that case as well. Accordingly, there being no difference in the cases, there is no reason for them to be decided other than in the same way, and accordingly I determine the issue raised in the matter of Baker in the same way as I determined it in the matter of Burk; that is to say there will be a declaration that the relevant law to be applied to this proceeding is the law of Australia, the content of which is to be derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory.
[1][2002] VSC 453
The other matter that is before the Court in the matter of Baker, is an application by the defendant to amend its defence in various ways, only one of which is now relevant; that is to say an amendment to plead the Limitations Act 1985 of the Australian Capital Territory as applying to this action.
Similarly to the judgment which I gave in Burk v The Commonwealth [2] on an identical point, there should be leave to the defendant to amend, upon its giving undertakings in the same form to that which it gave in Burk with, of course, different dates to reflect the dates upon which the plaintiff issued its extension application and the date of the defendant’s original defence.
[2]ibid.
---