Building (Action Limitation) Act 1997 (TAS)

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, the case of Doe v Smith was heard, where the plaintiff sought to recover damages for defects in building work carried out by the defendant over a decade prior. The dispute centred on the applicability of the Building (Action Limitation) Act 1997, which imposes a 10-year limitation period on actions relating to defective building work, with certain exceptions. The plaintiff argued that the statutory limitation period should not apply due to alleged fraudulent concealment by the defendant, while the defendant contended that the statutory period had expired, barring the plaintiff's action.

The court was required to determine whether the statutory limitation period set out in the Act applied to the plaintiff's action and, if so, whether any exceptions to this period could be invoked. Specifically, the court needed to examine whether the doctrine of equitable estoppel or any other exception could prevent the operation of the statutory limitation period. The court also needed to ascertain the precise date on which the cause of action accrued, which would determine whether the plaintiff's action was time-barred.

The court held that the statutory limitation period of 10 years as prescribed by the Building (Action Limitation) Act 1997 did apply to the plaintiff's action. The court found that the plaintiff's claims were time-barred, as they were brought more than 10 years after the cause of action accrued. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument of fraudulent concealment, finding insufficient evidence to support this claim. The court also held that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not apply in the circumstances of this case. Consequently, the plaintiff's action was dismissed as being outside the statutory limitation period.

The court ordered that the plaintiff take nothing by way of his action and that the defendant be awarded costs. The court further clarified that the statutory limitation period provided by the Act was a strict limitation and did not allow for extensions based on equitable considerations unless expressly provided for in the legislation.