Baker v Commonwealth

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.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baker v Commonwealth was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Richard James Baker, brought the action against the defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the nature of the dispute centred around the applicability of certain laws to the proceedings. This case was closely related to Burk v Commonwealth, a case heard and decided by the same judge on 21 October 2002. The primary legal issue that the court had to decide was whether the relevant law to be applied in the proceedings was the law of Australia, and if so, what the content of that law should be derived from. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant's application to amend its defence to include the Limitations Act 1985 of the Australian Capital Territory.

In determining the applicable law for the proceedings, the court followed the reasoning from the earlier case of Burk v Commonwealth. The court found that the relevant law to be applied was the law of Australia, and its content was to be derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory. The plaintiff did not make any new arguments or responses, relying on the same arguments made in the Burk case. The court found no reason to deviate from the earlier decision and applied the same principles to the Baker case. In relation to the defendant's application to amend its defence, the court granted leave for the defendant to make the amendment, subject to the defendant providing undertakings similar to those given in the Burk case.

The court's reasoning and outcome in Baker v Commonwealth were closely aligned with the earlier case of Burk v Commonwealth. The court granted a declaration that the relevant law to be applied in the proceedings was the law of Australia, derived from the law of the Australian Capital Territory. Furthermore, the court allowed the defendant to amend its defence to include the Limitations Act 1985 of the Australian Capital Territory, subject to the defendant providing appropriate undertakings.

In conclusion, the court's decision in Baker v Commonwealth closely followed the earlier case of Burk v Commonwealth, with the court applying the same legal principles and reasoning to the present case. The court granted a declaration regarding the applicable law and allowed the defendant to amend its defence to include the Limitations Act 1985 of the Australian Capital Territory.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established