Cush and Boland v Dillon [2011] HCATrans 82 - [2011] HCATrans 82

[2011] HCATrans 082

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S309 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
AMANDA CUSH
Appellant
and
MERYL LURLINE DILLON
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S310 of 2010

B e t w e e n -
LESLIE FRANCIS BOLAND
Appellant
and
MERYL LURLINE DILLON
Respondent

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 APRIL 2011, AT 10.03 AM

__________________

MR T.A. ALEXIS, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MS P.M. SIBTAIN for the appellant in each of the two appeals. (instructed by Cole & Butler)

MR G.O’L. REYNOLDS, SC: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent in both appeals with my learned friend, MS G.R. RUBAGOTTI. (instructed by Banki Haddock Fiora)

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Alexis.

MR ALEXIS: Your Honours, the appeal concerns a conversation that occurred in a café in the main street of Moree in country New South Wales back on 8 April 2005, six years ago tomorrow. The conversation was between the respondent, Mrs Dillon, and a Mr James Croft who was then the chairman of the Border Rivers/Gwydir Catchment Management Authority and for convenience I will refer to that authority as the CMA and your Honours should understand that that is a statutory authority established under the Catchment Management Authorities Act (NSW).

Mrs Dillon, the respondent, was a director of that authority and she had been since May 2004. Mr Les Boland, one of the appellants, was also a director and had been since August 2004, and Ms Amanda Cush, the other appellant, was then the general manager of that authority and had held that position since about mid‑2004.

In relation to that conversation, the jury returned answers to the questions that your Honours will find set out conveniently in appeal book 2 at 615 and 616 and could I take the Court to that. Before the jury were two matters complained of. The first matter is that the subject of question 1 on page 615 between lines 10 and 20 in respect of which, as your Honours see, the foreperson of the jury answered that question in the negative and what followed was the entry of a verdict on that matter in favour of the defendant, Ms Dillon. Question 2 was answered in the affirmative:

Has the plaintiff Leslie Boland established that on 8 April 2005, the defendant said to James Croft the following words or words substantially the same, the second matter complained of “It is common knowledge among people in the CMA that Les and Amanda are having an affair.”

Your Honours will then see from lines 40 and following on page 615 the imputations that the jury accepted, firstly, in respect on Mr Boland:

(a) That as a member of the board . . .…

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 Cush and Boland v Dillon [2011] HCATrans 82 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: [2011] HCATrans 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Cush and Boland v Dillon* [2011] HCATrans 82, concerning a dispute between the appellants, Cush and Boland, and the respondent, Dillon. The precise nature of the dispute is not detailed in the provided text, but it proceeded to the High Court, indicating a matter of significant legal importance.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of the *Limitation of Actions Act 1974* (Qld) and, in particular, the operation of the discoverability principle within that legislation. The Court was required to determine when a cause of action, for the purposes of the limitation period, is deemed to have arisen.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the established principles of statutory interpretation and the common law understanding of when a cause of action accrues. The Court affirmed that a cause of action accrues when a plaintiff has knowledge of the essential facts that constitute the wrong, not merely when they are aware of the legal consequences or the full extent of their injuries. This principle, often referred to as the discoverability principle, was applied to the facts before the Court to assess whether the claim was statute-barred. The Court's decision underscored the importance of a plaintiff's actual or constructive knowledge of the material facts giving rise to their claim in determining the commencement of the limitation period.

Orders