Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd v McCutcheon

Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court. The dispute concerned the application of the limitation of actions defence in tort proceedings brought by Andrew McCutcheon and the State. The applicant argued that the Full Court's decision was not in accordance with established authority and that the issues raised were important for the operation of tort law in Australia.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were the incidence of the onus of proof in relation to the limitation of actions defence and the question of when damage is first sustained for the purposes of that defence. The applicant contended that the Full Court had erred in its determination of these issues, particularly regarding the burden of proof.

The applicant's submission was that the Full Court had incorrectly placed the onus on the defendant to prove that damage had not been suffered before the limitation period expired. The applicant argued that established authority dictated that the onus lay on the plaintiff to demonstrate that their cause of action accrued within the limitation period. The applicant relied on precedent, as outlined in their submissions, asserting that in this area of law, the rules established by precedent are paramount for determining the burden of proof, rather than a priori reasoning. The applicant pointed to specific passages in the Full Court's judgment where it was submitted the onus was expressly referred to as resting on the defendant, which they argued was central to the Full Court's finding on the limitation defence.