DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil)
RENNIE v RENNIE
[2010] SADC 11
Judgment of His Honour Judge Millsteed
29 January 2010
PROCEDURE
Trial of preliminary issues pursuant to r 211 of the District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) - whether plaintiff should be granted an extension of time pursuant to s 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936 for personal injury resulting from sexual acts committed against her by the defendant - whether facts material to her case were ascertained after the expiration of the period of limitation but less than 12 months before the proceedings were instituted - whether the proceedings should be stayed on grounds of res judicata, "Anshun" estoppel or abuse of process - extension of time granted in respect of two of 41 causes of action - application for permanent stay of proceedings dismissed.
Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) s 45(1), s 48(1), s 36(1); District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 211; Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1978 (SA) s 14(1); Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) s 11, s 49; Law Reform (Ipp Recomendations) Act 2004 ss (3a), (3b); District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 7; District Court (Criminal and Miscellaneous) Rules 1992 (SA) r 7.07, referred to.
Read v Brown [1888] 22 QBD 128; Williams v Milotin (1957) 97 CLR 465; Cigna Insurance Asia Pacific Ltd v Packer (2000) 23 WAR 159; Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1; Boughey v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 10; Dawson v Commonwealth (1994) 12 WAR 29; Battiato v Lagana [1992] 2 Qd R 234; Brook v Flinders University of South Australia (1988) 47 SASR 119; Danae Investment Trust plc v MacIntosh Nominees Pty Ltd (1993) 61 SASR 341; Swietlik v Central Linen Service (1991) 56 SASR 569; Lovett v Le Gall (1975) 10 SASR 479; Sola Optical Australia Pty Ltd v Mills (1987) 163 CLR 628; Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd (1981) 147 CLR 589, considered.
RENNIE v RENNIE
[2010] SADC 11INTRODUCTION
This is a trial of preliminary issues conducted pursuant to r 211 of the District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) (“the Rules”).
The first issue is whether the plaintiff should be granted an extension of time pursuant to s 48 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) (“the LAA”) to bring actions in tort (trespass to the person) for personal injury resulting from sexual acts committed against her by the defendant when she was a child. The plaintiff contends that she qualifies for an extension of time because facts material to her case, namely, the existence and contents of a psychiatric report from Dr B K Jha, were not ascertained by her until after the expiration of the period of limitation and less than 12 months before the proceedings were instituted (s 48(3)(b)(i)). The defendant opposes the application. The second issue is whether the proceedings should, in any event, be stayed on…
Continue reading Rennie v Rennie
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Rennie v Rennie [2010] SADC 11
- Case
- [2010] SADC 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an extension of time in respect of two of the 41 causes of action, but that the application for a permanent stay of the proceedings was dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had not known or ought to have known of the facts giving rise to her cause of action until after the limitation period had expired, and that the circumstances of the case fell within the scope of section 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936. The court also found that the plaintiff was not estopped from bringing the action by reason of the prior judgment, as the issues before the court were different from those decided in the prior proceeding. The court held that the proceedings should not be stayed on grounds of res judicata, "Anshun" estoppel or abuse of process.
The court's decision in Rennie v Rennie is an important reminder of the importance of the limitation period in personal injury actions and the importance of seeking legal advice as soon as possible after an injury occurs. The court's decision also highlights the importance of considering the availability of an extension of time under section 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936, and the need to carefully consider the circumstances of each case in determining whether such an extension should be granted. The court's decision also serves as a warning to defendants in personal injury actions that they cannot rely on prior judgments to prevent a plaintiff from bringing a subsequent action if the circumstances of the case have changed.
Orders
Orders of the court
PROCEDURE
Trial of preliminary issues pursuant to r 211 of the District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) - whether plaintiff should be granted an extension of time pursuant to s 48 of the Limitations of Actions Act 1936 for personal injury resulting from sexual acts committed against her by the defendant - whether facts material to her case were ascertained after the expiration of the period of limitation but less than 12 months before the proceedings were instituted - whether the proceedings should be stayed on grounds of res judicata, "Anshun" estoppel or abuse of process - extension of time granted in respect of two of 41 causes of action - application for permanent stay of proceedings dismissed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.