Chhibber v Barton

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Ramona Margaret Chhibber, a suburban housewife, was involved in a longstanding dispute with her neighbours, Norman Benjamin Barton and Ruth Zara Rachel Barton. The applicant sought to raise questions of public importance concerning adverse possession, specifically the significance of fencing, the interpretation of section 27(c) of the Limitation of Actions Act, and the concept of mistake in adverse possession.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation of section 27 of the Limitation of Actions Act, particularly the meaning of "mistake" in the context of adverse possession, and whether the applicant could rely on this provision. The applicant argued that there was no authoritative Australian case law on this section and that the present dispute offered an appropriate occasion for the High Court to consider it, especially given a recent decision on mistake in a different context. A further point of contention was that the mistake in question was allegedly made by a contractor employed by the respondents' predecessor in title, and potentially the applicant's predecessor in title.

The applicant contended that by defending the proceedings, she was seeking relief from the consequences of a mistake within the meaning of section 27. She argued that the trial judge's view, that she could not have succeeded on the basis of section 27 even if she had been the plaintiff, was incorrect. The applicant submitted that if she had been the plaintiff, she could have relied on a common mistake between the parties. The court noted that the action for relief from the consequences of mistake was distinct from the applicant's defence.