Flannery v BAGGETTA - [2013] WADC 49

FLANNERY -v- BAGGETTA [2013] WADC 49

Last Update: 17/04/2013

FLANNERY -v- BAGGETTA [2013] WADC 49
Jurisdiction:	DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WADC 49
Case No:	CIV:1358/2012	Heard:	25 MARCH 2013
Coram:	DAVIS DCJ	Delivered:	12/04/2013
Location:	PERTH	Supplementary Decision:
No of Pages:	19	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals dismissed
[Click here for Judgment in Adobe Acrobat Format ]

Parties:	MICHAEL LAURENCE FLANNERY ANNA MARIA FLANNERY CARLO BAGGETTA TEVERE PTY LTD SHIRE OF HARVEY
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Appeal from a registrar dismissing defendants' applications for summary judgment on ground that plaintiffs' claim is statute barred Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Limitation Act 1935 Limitation Act 2005 Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 16 r 1
Case References:	Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184 Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609 Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v Owners Strata Plan No 64970 [2011] NSWCA 181 Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539 Kudrin v City of Mandurah [2009] WADC 75 New South Wales v Fahy (2007) 232 CLR 486 Pilbara Iron Ltd v Bonotto (1994) 11 WAR 348 Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW v Dederer (2007) 234 CLR 330 SMEC Australia Pty Ltd v Valentine Falls Estate Pty Ltd [2011] WASCA 138 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster [1972] HCA 41; (1972) 126 CLR 507 Wardley Australia Ltd v The State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : FLANNERY -v- BAGGETTA [2013] WADC 49 CORAM : DAVIS DCJ HEARD : 25 MARCH 2013 DELIVERED : 12 APRIL 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1358 of 2012 BETWEEN : MICHAEL LAURENCE FLANNERY

ANNA MARIA FLANNERY

Plaintiffs

AND

CARLO BAGGETTA

First Defendant

TEVERE PTY LTD

Second Defendant

SHIRE OF HARVEY

Third Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal from a registrar dismissing defendants' applications for summary judgment on ground that plaintiffs' claim is statute barred - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935
Limitation Act 2005
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 O 16 r 1

Result:

Appeals dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiffs : Mr J C Yeldon

First Defendant : No appearance

Second Defendant : Ms D M Templeman

Third Defendant : Mr P G McGowan

Solicitors:

Plaintiffs : Irdi Legal

First Defendant : Contract Intelligence Pty Ltd

Second Defendant : Gilchrist Connell

Third Defendant : DLA Piper Australia

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

Ansearch Ltd v Wavtech Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 184
Bryan v Maloney (1995) 182 CLR 609
Cyril Smith & Associates Pty Ltd v Owners Strata Plan No 64970 [2011] NSWCA 181
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Kudrin v City of Mandurah [2009] WADC 75
New South Wales v Fahy (2007) 232 CLR 486
Pilbara Iron Ltd v Bonotto (1994) 11 WAR 348

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 Flannery v BAGGETTA

Details

AGLC: FLANNERY -v- BAGGETTA [2013] WADC 49
Case: [2013] WADC 49
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Flannery v Baggetta involved a dispute where the plaintiffs sought to recover damages for personal injury. The defendants contested the claim, arguing that it was statute-barred under the Limitation Act. The matter was initially heard by a registrar who dismissed the defendants' applications for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs' claim was not statute-barred. The defendants then appealed to the court, challenging the registrar's decision.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiffs' claim was indeed statute-barred and whether the registrar's decision to dismiss the defendants' applications for summary judgment was correct. The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the Limitation Act in the context of the plaintiffs' personal injury claim. The court needed to examine the facts and circumstances of the case to ascertain if the statutory time limit for bringing the claim had expired.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the specific facts of the case, including the date of the injury, the date when the plaintiffs became aware of the injury, and the subsequent steps taken to pursue the claim. The court found that the registrar had properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles in concluding that the plaintiffs' claim was not statute-barred. The court upheld the registrar's decision and dismissed the defendants' appeals, affirming that the claim was not statute-barred and thus could proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals 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.