BROWN -v- MINISTER FOR EDUCATION [2003] WASCA 204

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 204
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:2039/2003	Heard:	27 AUGUST 2003
Coram:	MCKECHNIE J HASLUCK J PULLIN J	Delivered:	27/08/03
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	JACLYN SHAUNA BROWN MINISTER FOR EDUCATION
Catchwords:	Limitation of actions Public authority defendant Infant injured
Legislation:	Limitation Act 1935, s 38, s 40, s 47A
Case References:	Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1 Bramwell v The Western Australian Museum [2003] WADC 171 Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395 Holland v Board of Management of King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women (1995) 14 SR (WA) 305 Keddis v WA Government Railways Commission (1994) 11 SR (WA) 232 Northey v Minister for Education (1995) 13 SR (WA) 124 Scott v Western Australia (1994) 11 WAR 382 Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : BROWN -v- MINISTER FOR EDUCATION [2003] WASCA 204 CORAM : MCKECHNIE J

HASLUCK J

PULLIN J

HEARD : 27 AUGUST 2003 DELIVERED : 27 AUGUST 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2039 of 2003 BETWEEN : JACLYN SHAUNA BROWN

Plaintiff

AND

MINISTER FOR EDUCATION

Respondent

Catchwords:

Limitation of actions - Public authority defendant - Infant injured

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935, s 38, s 40, s 47A

Result:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

(Page 2)

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B L Nugawela

Respondent : Mr C Pruiti

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Piu & Associates

Respondent : Basile Hawkins

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1

Case(s) also cited:

Bramwell v The Western Australian Museum [2003] WADC 171
Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395
Holland v Board of Management of King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women (1995) 14 SR (WA) 305
Keddis v WA Government Railways Commission (1994) 11 SR (WA) 232
Northey v Minister for Education (1995) 13 SR (WA) 124
Scott v Western Australia (1994) 11 WAR 382
Wilson v Metaxas [1989] WAR 285

(Page 3)

1 PULLIN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of his Honour District Court Judge Groves on 22 August 2003, when he dismissed the application pursuant to s 47A of the Limitation Act to extend time in which to commence proceedings against the respondent.

2 Jaclyn Shauna Brown, the applicant, was born on 29 August 1979. In 1985, when she was six years old, she was a grade 1 student enrolled at Leeming Primary School. On 12 December 1985, in the school grounds, she suffered an injury to her right eye, which ultimately led to the loss of sight in that eye, its removal and replacement with an artificial eye. The applicant wishes to sue the respondent for damages for negligence.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Brown v Minister for Education and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] WASCA 204
Decision Date: 27 AUGUST 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Brown v Minister for Education, the plaintiff, Brown, sought damages for injuries sustained as an infant while in the care of the defendant, the Minister for Education. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had jurisdiction over public authority claims under the Public Liability and Insurance (Government and Public Authorities) Act 1989. The plaintiff argued that the defendant was liable for the injuries incurred during his time in state care.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim was subject to any limitation period, and if so, whether the claim had been filed within the requisite timeframe. The plaintiff contended that the limitation period did not apply due to his status as an infant at the time of the incident and his subsequent appointment of a litigation guardian. The defendant argued that the statutory limitation period had expired, precluding the plaintiff from pursuing the claim.

The court held that the statutory limitation period applied to the plaintiff's claim, and the claim was indeed time-barred. The court found that the statutory provisions in the Public Liability and Insurance (Government and Public Authorities) Act 1989 imposed a limitation period for claims against public authorities, which the plaintiff failed to meet. The court further held that the plaintiff's status as an infant did not exempt him from the statutory limitation period, as the legislation provided for the appointment of a litigation guardian to act on behalf of the infant. However, the court found that the litigation guardian had not acted within the limitation period, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim was barred. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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.