BARR -v- FARRELL [2013] WASCA 211
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2013] WASCA 211 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:100/2012 | 15 APRIL 2013 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA NEWNES JA MURPHY JA | 10/09/13 | |
| 23 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal allowed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | TANSY ANN BARR LOUISE FARRELL ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC |
Catchwords: | Limitation of actions Personal injury Action for damages arising out of childbirth Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 4, s 7 Guardian of plaintiff wrongly advised by solicitors as to limitation period Action out of time Application for extension of time to commence action Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 41 Whether in the circumstances it was unreasonable for a guardian of the plaintiff not to commence the action within time Appeal against dismissal of application for extension of time |
Legislation: | Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 41 |
Case References: | Avondale Motors (Parts) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1971] HCA 17; (1971) 124 CLR 97 Barr (an infant) by her next friend Nigel Morrison Barr v Farrell [2012] WADC 116 Briggs v James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 549 Burns v Minister for Health [2012] WASCA 267 Carey v Australian Broadcasting Corporation [2012] NSWCA 176 Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd [1996] HCA 36; (1996) 186 CLR 389 Corporate Affairs Commission (New South Wales) v Yuill [1991] HCA 28; (1991) 172 CLR 319 Dousi v Colgate Palmolive Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 374 K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd [1985] HCA 48; (1985) 157 CLR 309 Khoury v Government Insurance Office of (NSW) [1984] HCA 55; (1984) 165 CLR 622 Lacy v Attorney-General (Qld) [2011] HCA 10; (2011) 242 CLR 573 Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50; [2010] 2 Qd R 537 Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1998) 194 CLR 355 R v Brown [1996] AC 543 Re Bolton; Ex parte Beane [1987] HCA 12; (1987) 162 CLR 514 Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 241 CLR 252 Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd v Mills [1987] HCA 57; (1987) 163 CLR 628 Taylor v Public Service Board (New South Wales) [1976] HCA 36; (1976) 137 CLR 208 Wik Peoples v Queensland [1996] HCA 40; (1996) 187 CLR 1 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARR -v- FARRELL [2013] WASCA 211 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA
- Appellant
AND
LOUISE FARRELL
First Respondent
ST JOHN OF GOD HEALTH CARE INC
Second Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : BOWDEN DCJ
Citation : TANSY ANN BARR (an infant)…
Continue reading Barr v Farrell
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- BARR -v- FARRELL [2013] WASCA 211
- Case
- [2013] WASCA 211
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Barr v Farrell involved a dispute over the limitation of actions for a personal injury claim arising from complications during childbirth. The plaintiff, Barr, sought damages for injuries sustained during childbirth. The defendant, Farrell, argued that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's guardian could be excused for not commencing the action within the statutory limitation period. The guardian had been wrongly advised by solicitors regarding the limitation period, leading to the action being filed outside the prescribed time.
The court was required to consider whether it was reasonable for the guardian not to have commenced the action within the statutory period, given the incorrect advice received from the solicitors. The court examined the circumstances under which the guardian acted, including the reliance on the solicitors' advice, to determine if the guardian's conduct was reasonable under the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The court needed to balance the statutory requirements of the Limitation Act with the equities of the situation, particularly the reliance on professional advice.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that it was not unreasonable for the guardian to rely on the solicitors' advice in determining the limitation period. The court found that the guardian had acted reasonably by following the advice of the solicitors and, as a result, granted an extension of time to commence the action under section 41 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The appeal was successful on the basis that the guardian's reliance on the solicitors' advice was a mitigating factor that justified the extension of time.
The court was required to consider whether it was reasonable for the guardian not to have commenced the action within the statutory period, given the incorrect advice received from the solicitors. The court examined the circumstances under which the guardian acted, including the reliance on the solicitors' advice, to determine if the guardian's conduct was reasonable under the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The court needed to balance the statutory requirements of the Limitation Act with the equities of the situation, particularly the reliance on professional advice.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that it was not unreasonable for the guardian to rely on the solicitors' advice in determining the limitation period. The court found that the guardian had acted reasonably by following the advice of the solicitors and, as a result, granted an extension of time to commence the action under section 41 of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA). The appeal was successful on the basis that the guardian's reliance on the solicitors' advice was a mitigating factor that justified the extension of time.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.