Legal Research
Cases
Clutha v Millar (No 3)

Clutha v Millar (No 3)

Case [2002] NSWSC 642 24 July 2002

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Clutha v Millar (No.3) [2002] NSWSC 642

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4834/00

HEARING DATE(S): 25 June, 17 July 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 24 July 2002

PARTIES :

Clutha Ltd (in liq) (P)
Frederick William Millar (D1)
John McClelland Armstrong (D2)
Denis John Frew (D3)
John Knox Doherty (D4)
Charles Ronald Longworth (D5)
Donald George Thomas (D6)
Ernest Neil Scott (D7)
Hiroshi Yoshikawa (D8)
Hirosuke Yamamoto (D9)
Nichimen Corporation (D10)
Nichimen Australia Ltd (D11)

JUDGMENT OF: Austin J

COUNSEL : Mr G Seib (P)
Mr G Lucarelli (D1 to D7)
Mr J Marshall (D10 & D11)

SOLICITORS: Piper Alderman (P)
Minter Ellison (D1 to D7)
Clayton Utz (D10 & D11)

CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - pleading - limitation of action - whether pleading in negligence of failure over time to discharge continuing duty of care gives rise to a single cause of action beginning when measurable damage is first suffered, so that if that time is outside the limitation period, the claim is statute-barred - or, in the alternative, whether the pleading gives rise to multiple causes of action, some not statute-barred if part of the period of failure to discharge the duty is within the limitation period

LEGISLATION CITED: Limitations Act 1969 (NSW) s 14

CASES CITED: Argyropoulos v Layton [2002] NSWCA 183
Astley v Austrust Ltd (1999) 197 CLR 1
Autodesk v Dyason (No 2) (1992) 111 ALR 385
Cartledge v Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758
Clutha Ltd (in liq) v Millar (No 2) [2002] NSWSC 523
Clutha Ltd (in liq) v Millar [2002] NSWSC 362
Hawkins v Clayton (1986) 5 NSWLR 109
Hawkins v Clayton (1987) 164 CLR 539
Howell v Young (1826) 5 B & C 259
Larking v Great Western (Nepean) Gravel Ltd (1940) 64 CLR 221
Scarcella v Lettice (2000) 51 NSWLR 302
Sheldon v McBeath (1993) Aust Torts Reports para 81-209
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Wilson v Rigg [2000] NSWSC 16

DECISION: Proceeding to be dismissed against first to seventh defendants

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

AUSTIN J

WEDNESDAY 24 JULY 2002

4834/00 CLUTHA LTD (IN LIQ) V FREDERICK WILLIAM MILLAR & ORS (NO.3)

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This judgment is supplementary to my judgment in Clutha Ltd (in liq) v Millar [2002] NSWSC 362 ("Clutha No 1").

2 In Clutha No 1 I decided that Clutha's pleaded case in negligence against the first to seventh defendants (directors of Clutha at the relevant time) was statute-barred. This was because the proceeding was commenced on 30 November 2000, and the statement of claim asserted negligence by failure to prevent the company from incurring debts during the period from 30 September 1994 to 14 February 1995, while it was (according to the pleading) insolvent. I regarded the pleading as an assertion that measurable loss occurred from 30 September 1994, outside the six-year limitation period for an action based on a cause of action in tort. Therefore I held…

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.

Continue reading Clutha v Millar (No 3)

Details

AGLC: Clutha v Millar (No 3) [2002] NSWSC 642
Case: [2002] NSWSC 642
Decision Date: 24 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Clutha v Millar (No 3) involved a complex dispute over the application of limitation periods in negligence claims. The respondent, Mr. Millar, was a doctor who failed to properly treat and manage the medical care of the deceased, Mr. Clutha, over an extended period. The dispute centred on whether the doctor's failure to discharge his duty of care constituted a single cause of action, which commenced when the first measurable damage was suffered, or whether it gave rise to multiple causes of action, some of which might not be statute-barred if part of the period of failure was within the limitation period. The matter was before the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue that the Court had to address was whether a negligence claim based on a failure over time to discharge a continuing duty of care should be considered a single cause of action beginning when the first measurable damage is suffered. Alternatively, the Court needed to determine if such a claim gives rise to multiple causes of action, with some not being statute-barred if part of the failure occurred within the limitation period. This distinction is crucial in determining the applicability of limitation periods in cases involving prolonged negligence.

The Court found that the pleading in negligence concerning the failure over time to discharge a continuing duty of care does not give rise to a single cause of action beginning when the first measurable damage is suffered. Instead, each day of the period of failure gives rise to a separate cause of action. Consequently, if any part of the period of failure is within the limitation period, the corresponding cause of action is not statute-barred. This decision was grounded in the understanding that the limitation period begins to run on each day of the failure to discharge the duty of care, allowing for the possibility that some causes of action might remain within the limitation period even if the first measurable damage occurred outside of it.

The Court's decision clarified the approach to limitation periods in cases involving ongoing negligence. The final orders of the Court recognised that the doctor's failure to properly treat and manage Mr. Clutha's medical care over an extended period resulted in multiple causes of action, each corresponding to a day of failure. This nuanced understanding allows for the possibility that some of these causes of action, even if the first measurable damage occurred outside the limitation period, might still be actionable if part of the failure occurred within the limitation period.

Orders