SDW v Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

In this case, SDW, the plaintiff, brought an action against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the defendant, seeking damages for personal injury. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to warn of the risks of a particular religious practice, resulting in harm. The dispute reached the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff applied for an extension of time to commence the proceedings, which was beyond the limitation period set by the Limitation of Actions Act (Qld). The defendant opposed the application, arguing that the plaintiff had not established a material fact of decisive character unknown to them, and that the application was made in bad faith.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff had demonstrated a material fact of decisive character that was unknown to them and which could not have been discovered by reasonable diligence, and whether the application for an extension of time was made in good faith. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had established a duty of care and a breach of that duty by the defendant, which caused the plaintiff's injury. The court also considered the constitutional question of whether the Constitution recognised the free exercise of religion subject to state legislation, and whether a law interfering with the confidentiality of religious confession was invalidated by section 116 of the Constitution.

The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a material fact of decisive character unknown to them, and that the application for an extension of time was made in bad faith. The court held that the commencement of the action occurred upon the filing of the statement of claim, not when the substantive proceedings were commenced. The court also found that the plaintiff had not established a duty of care and a breach of that duty by the defendant, which caused the plaintiff's injury. The court held that the Constitution did not recognise the free exercise of religion subject to state legislation, and that a law interfering with the confidentiality of religious confession was not invalidated by section 116 of the Constitution. The court made a cost order against the plaintiff for the excess documents put before the court, excessive photocopying, and delay. The application for an extension of time was dismissed.