Limitation (Amendment) Act 1998 (ACT)

The parties involved in this case were the defendant, who was being sued for defamation, and the plaintiff, who was the individual who had been defamed. The dispute arose from a publication that the plaintiff claimed was defamatory and occurred before the commencement of the Limitation (Amendment) Act 1998. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The legal issue before the court was whether the Limitation (Amendment) Act 1998 applied to the plaintiff's cause of action for defamation, which arose before the Act came into effect. The court had to determine whether the one-year limitation period for defamation claims applied to the plaintiff's cause of action, which arose before the Act was passed. The court also had to consider whether the court could extend the limitation period if it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have known about the publication within one year from the date of the first publication.

The court held that the Limitation (Amendment) Act 1998 applied to the plaintiff's cause of action for defamation, even though the cause of action arose before the Act came into effect. The court found that the one-year limitation period for defamation claims applied to the plaintiff's cause of action, and that the court could extend the limitation period if it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have known about the publication within one year from the date of the first publication. The court found that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have known about the publication within one year from the date of the first publication, and therefore extended the limitation period to two years.

The court's decision was that the plaintiff's cause of action for defamation was not time-barred, and that the limitation period could be extended to two years. The court found that the Limitation (Amendment) Act 1998 applied to the plaintiff's cause of action, even though the cause of action arose before the Act came into effect. The court also found that it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to have known about the publication within one year from the date of the first publication, and therefore extended the limitation period to two years.