HWC v The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane

The case before the Court of Appeal was between HWC, the plaintiff, and three defendants: The Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane, the second defendant, and two other defendants. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries resulting from sexual abuse by a teacher at a school run by the first defendant. The plaintiff's action against the second and third defendants was for contribution if damages were recoverable from the first defendant. The plaintiff sought an extension of the limitation period under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) to maintain the action. The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's knowledge of the material facts arose late enough to justify an extension of the limitation period, and whether the exercise of the court's discretion to extend the limitation period was appropriate.

The court examined the principles upon which the discretion to extend the limitation period should be exercised. The court held that the plaintiff's knowledge of the material facts did not arise until the year before the proceedings were instituted against the second defendant. The court held that the fact that the headmaster of the school had allegedly warned against hiring the teacher did not constitute a material fact of a decisive character. The court found that the primary judge had misapplied the principles upon which the discretion should be exercised. The court found that the exercise of the primary judge's discretion to extend the limitation period miscarried, as it was not possible to have a fair trial due to the recent statements provided by persons relating to the employment of the teacher containing differing views about the content of the conversation.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the primary judge except for the orders concerning the costs of the adjournment on 14 March 2008. The plaintiff's and the first defendant's applications for an extension of the limitation period were dismissed as it affected the second and third defendants. The plaintiff's claim against all three defendants and the first defendant's claim against the second and third defendants were dismissed. The parties were at liberty to make written submissions in relation to issues of costs in accordance with Practice Direction No 1 of 2005.