Legal Research
Cases
Reeves v NSW

Reeves v NSW

Case [2005] NSWSC 1138 15 November 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Reeves v NSW [2005] NSWSC 1138

HEARING DATE(S): 15 & 16 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE :

15 November 2005

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF:
Hidden J at 1

DECISION:
Application granted in part.

CATCHWORDS:
LIMITATION ACT: application for extension of time - action by former police officer for damages for psychological injury - effects of incidents during police service, including Wood Royal Commission and rejection for promotion - whether viable cause of action - explanation for delay - prejudice to defendant

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crown Proceedings Act 1988
Limitation Act 1969 ss 18A, 60C, 60G, 60E
Police Service Act 1990 ss 64, 71, 94A

CASES CITED:
Gould v State of NSW [2005] NSWSC 1121
Yu v Speirs [2001] NSWCA 373
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
State of NSW v Paige (2002) 60 NSWLR 371
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
ASB-Tech Services Pty Ltd v Doeland & Anor [2003] NSWCA 167
State of NSW v Brennan [2004] NSWCA 206
State of NSW v Donnelley [2004] NSWCA 133
Holt v Wynter (2000) 49 NSWLR 128

PARTIES:
Steven Anthony Reeves
State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S):
SC 20333/2000

COUNSEL:
G Melick SC/J Berg (Plaintiff)
G Laughton SC/N Newton (Defendant)

SOLICITORS:
Marsdens Law Group (Plaintiff)
Crown Solicitors Office (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

15 November 2005
20333/2000 Steven Anthony Reeves

v

State of New South Wales

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Steven Anthony Reeves, is a former police officer. He has brought proceedings in this Court against the State of New South Wales, pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act 1988, for damages for psychological injury alleged to have occurred as a result of experiences during his police career. The action is based upon what are described as thirteen “traumatic incidents”, said to have occurred between 1970 and 1998. The statement of claim was filed on 19 July 2000. By s18A of the Limitation Act 1969, the action is subject to a limitation period of three years from the accrual of the cause of action. Before me is an application by the plaintiff for an extension of time for the filing of the statement of claim, relying upon provisions of the Limitation Act to which I shall turn later.

2 Details of the thirteen incidents relied upon were supplied in answer to a request for particulars. Ten of those incidents (incidents 1-8, 12 and 13) were distressing, threatening or violent events in which the plaintiff was involved in the ordinary course of his police duties. It is unnecessary to describe them for present purposes. Indeed, no further reference need be made to the twelfth and thirteenth incidents because they are alleged to have occurred during 1998 and, accordingly, are themselves within the limitation period. The remaining incidents (incidents 9-11) are of a different nature. The ninth incident relates to the plaintiff’s care of eleven other police officers while he was acting…

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 Reeves v NSW

Details

AGLC: Reeves v NSW [2005] NSWSC 1138
Case: [2005] NSWSC 1138
Decision Date: 15 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved a former police officer, Reeves, who sought damages for psychological injury resulting from incidents during his service. The defendant was the state of New South Wales. The case centred on whether the plaintiff had a viable cause of action and whether the delay in bringing the action could be justified, necessitating an extension of the limitation period under the Limitation Act. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had a viable cause of action for the psychological injuries sustained during his police service and whether the delay in bringing the action could be justified under the Limitation Act. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the delay would prejudice the defendant.

In addressing these issues, the court found that the plaintiff had established a viable cause of action for the psychological injuries incurred due to the incidents during his service, including the impact of the Wood Royal Commission and the rejection for promotion. The court also considered the plaintiff's explanation for the delay, which included the ongoing nature of the psychological injury and the difficulty in identifying the precise causative events. The court determined that the delay would not significantly prejudice the defendant, as the state had retained relevant documents and witnesses were available. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff an extension of time to bring the action.

Orders