Legal Research
Cases
Lovejoy v Carp & Ors

Lovejoy v Carp & Ors

Case [1999] VSC 223 18 June 1999

Limitation Periods

Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Strike Out

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CAUSES JURISDICTION Do not Send for Reporting

Not Restricted

No. 4138 of 1994

ADAM ACINTYA LOVEJOY	Plaintiff
v
LEON CARP AND ORS	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	O'Bryan J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1, 2 and 3 June 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 June 1999
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lovejoy v. Carp & Ors
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSC 223

---

Limitation of Actions Act ss.5, 23 and 23A – Claim for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of good faith – Striking out claim for want of prosecution – Rules of Court, R24 – Striking out pleadings Rule 23.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr D.A. Perkins	Anderson Rice
For the First Defendant	Mr J.M. Forrest QC with Ms M.A. Hartley	Blake, Dawson, Waldron
For the Second, Twelfth, Thirteenth and Twentieth Named Defendants	Mr J.M. Forrest QC with Mr N. Fowler	J.W. Ball & Sons
For the Third to Eleventh, Fourteenth to Nineteenth and Twenty-first to Thirty‑Third Defendants	Mr P. Golombek	Ronald C. Beazley Victorian Government Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

It is a daunting task to introduce in an intelligible narrative all the parties and the many causes of action in this proceeding which commenced with the issue of a Writ on 17 January 1994. Thirty three defendants are named in the Writ. I propose to identify each defendant by a number for convenience.

The applications before the court relate to the Limitations of Actions Act 1958 and the Rules of the Supreme Court in civil proceedings.

The plaintiff caused a Summons to be filed on 20 October 1998 seeking orders that the period within which an action on the cause of action may be brought be extended pursuant to s.23A of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 ("the Act"). When the matter was argued Mr Perkins of counsel who appeared for the plaintiff indicated that he proposed to rely upon an alleged "disability" in the plaintiff to which s.23 of the Act relates. The ambit of the application was considerably widened as a result and raised questions of considerable importance.

The defendants represented by Mr Forrest, senior counsel, who appeared with Mr Hartley and Mr Fowler (Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 12, Defendant 13 and Defendant 20) are all medical practitioners who allegedly treated the plaintiff negligently between 1978 and 1987.

By Summonses dated 12 June 1998 (Defendant 1) and 15 June 1998 (Defendants 2, 12, 13 and 20) the defendants represented by Mr Forrest applied to have the proceeding stayed or that there be judgment for them because all the causes of action are statute barred by s.5(1) of the Act or pursuant to Rule 23.01. Alternatively, that summary judgment be ordered pursuant to Rule 23.03.

The defendants also applied pursuant to Rule 24 and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court that the proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The defendants represented by Mr Golombek are Defendants 6, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24,…

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 Lovejoy v Carp & Ors

Details

AGLC: Lovejoy v Carp & Ors [1999] VSC 223
Case: [1999] VSC 223
Decision Date: 18 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lovejoy v Carp & Ors, the dispute involved a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of good faith, brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, including Carp. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had failed to uphold their fiduciary duties towards him, leading to significant financial losses. The defendants argued that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Limitation of Actions Act, which imposes time limits on legal actions.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's claim was time-barred under the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act, specifically sections 5, 23, and 23A, and whether the plaintiff's failure to prosecute his claim diligently warranted the striking out of the pleadings under the Supreme Court Rules of Court, Rule 24 and Rule 23. The court had to consider the interplay between the statutory limitation periods and the equitable principle of estoppel by acquiescence, as well as the court's inherent jurisdiction to manage its own proceedings.

The court found that the statutory limitation periods had indeed expired, and the plaintiff's claim was time-barred. It noted that the plaintiff had failed to take any meaningful steps to prosecute the claim within the relevant period. The court also held that there was no evidence of conduct by the defendants that would have led the plaintiff to believe that it was unnecessary to enforce his rights within the statutory period. Furthermore, the court determined that the equitable doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence did not apply as there was no clear and unequivocal representation by the defendants that would have prevented the plaintiff from bringing his claim. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to strike out the plaintiff's claim for want of prosecution.

As a result of the court's decision, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. This outcome underscores the importance of timely prosecution of legal claims and the limitations imposed by statute on the enforcement of rights.

Orders