Blunden v Commonwealth

The High Court of Australia considered a dispute between Mr Blunden, the plaintiff, and the Commonwealth of Australia, the defendant, concerning a tort that occurred on the high seas. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, alleging negligence by servants or agents of the Commonwealth. The central issue revolved around which limitation period applied to the plaintiff's action, which was commenced over 34 years after the alleged tort.

The court was required to determine whether the statutory limitation period applicable in the Australian Capital Territory, or alternatively in New South Wales, applied to the plaintiff's claim. This involved considering the operation of sections 56, 79, 80, and 80A of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) and whether the "laws of the Commonwealth" encompassed the unmodified common law of Australia or required the adoption of specific choice of law rules. The court also had to consider whether the common law itself provided a general principle for the limitation of actions, or if such limitations were solely a matter for legislative intervention.

The High Court reasoned that section 80 of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) required the application of the relevant territorial statute law to modify the common law. The court concluded that the *Limitation Act 1985* (ACT) was the applicable law. This Act, despite being enacted after the cause of action accrued, applied to certain pre-accrual causes of action and contained provisions, specifically in Part III, that qualified the general limitation periods. The court noted that section 36 of the *Limitation Act 1985* (ACT) empowered the Supreme Court to extend the period within which an action may be brought, a provision that had been the subject of prior proceedings in lower courts.

The High Court answered the questions reserved in the Case Stated. It held that the plaintiff's action was subject to the *Limitation Act 1985* (ACT). Consequently, the action was not subject to the limitation periods prescribed by the laws of New South Wales. The question of whether the action was subject to none of the pleaded statutory limitation periods did not arise.