House v ACT

[2025] ACTSC 122

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

House v ACT

Citation: 

[2025] ACTSC 122

Hearing Date: 

28 March 2025

Decision Date: 

28 March 2025

Before:

Mossop J

Decision: 

See [28]

Catchwords: 

HUMAN RIGHTS – EXTENSION OF TIME – Where one-year limitation period for starting proceedings against a public authority applies pursuant to s 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act “unless the court orders otherwise” – where leave only required for one paragraph of pleadings and proceedings otherwise commenced within time – whether pleadings adequately allege how breaches of ss 8(2) and 27(2) of the Human Rights Act occurred – effect of adequacy of pleadings on court’s discretion to otherwise order – extension of time not granted – leave granted to file amended pleading

Legislation Cited: 

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 425

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), ss 8, 27, 40B, 40C

Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 145

Cases Cited: 

Comcare v A’Hearn (1993) 45 FCR 441

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344

Parties: 

Paul Girrawah House ( First Plaintiff)

Leah Matilda House ( Second Plaintiff)

Australian Capital Territory ( First Defendant)

ACT Minister for Heritage (Second Defendant)

Representation: 

Counsel

S Fitzgerald (First and Second Plaintiff)

C Lenehan SC with J Dempster ( First Defendant)

Solicitors

Griffin Legal ( First and Second Plaintiff)

ACT Government Solicitor ( First Defendant)

File Number:

SC 381 of 2024

MOSSOP J:  

Introduction

1․This is an application in proceeding filed by the plaintiffs, Paul Girrawah House and Leah Matilda House, for an extension of time for commencing proceedings against the first defendant to 28 November 2024 pursuant to ss 40C(2)(a) and 40C(3) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) (HR Act). It is important to note that the application only relates to a very small part of the overall proceedings. It only relates to the allegation raised in paragraph 20 of the current pleadings. So far as the balance of the claim is concerned, there is no requirement for an extension of time under the HR Act.

Background

2․The plaintiffs brought earlier proceedings claiming that the existence of a protocol promulgated by the ACT Executive which recognised the Ngunnawal people as the traditional custodians of the land which is now the Australian Capital Territory involved a breach of ss 27(2) and 40B of the HR Act. Section 27(2) is a provision of the HR Act which says that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must not be denied certain cultural rights. Section 40B is the provision which makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a human right or fails to give proper consideration to a relevant human right. As a result of the earlier proceedings, the plaintiffs and the Australian Capital Territory entered into a deed of settlement and release on 26 April 2023 (Settlement Deed). In clause 3 of the Settlement Deed, the Territory took on certain obligations, and in clause 4 it gave certain undertakings as to…