SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Simmons (a pseudonym) v Wheeler (a pseudonym) (No 2) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 51 |
Hearing Date: | 29 February 2024 |
Decision Date: | 29 February 2024 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [16] |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION – Allegations of historic sexual and physical abuse – plaintiffs and second and third defendants all children at the time of alleged abuse – where alleged conduct said to have taken place entirely in Queensland – Queensland limitation laws apply as part of the substantive law of the location of the tort PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – LIMITATION – Limitation of time to bring claim – applications to amend defences to include defence of statutory limitation by s 11 of Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) – whether s 11A of same Act defeats defence of s 11 statutory limitation – question better answered at trial and not at preliminary stage – applications allowed |
Legislation Cited: | Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT), s 5A |
Cases Cited: | Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27; 239 CLR 175 |
Parties: | Maddie Simmons (a pseudonym) (First Plaintiff) Jenny Simmons (a pseudonym) (Second Plaintiff) Geoffrey Wheeler (a pseudonym) (First Defendant) Paul Mitchell Simmons (a pseudonym) (Second Defendant) Jeremy Connor (a pseudonym) (Third Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel T Crispin ( Plaintiffs) D Prail (First Defendant) A Costin (Second Defendant) W Sharwood (Third Defendant) |
| Solicitors InPrivate Law ( Plaintiffs) Prail Lawyers (First Defendant) Somerville Laundry Lomax Solicitors (Second Defendant) Taylor Rose (Third Defendant) | |
File Number: | SC 363 of 2022 |
MOSSOP J:
These proceedings are proceedings in tort which relate to allegations of sexual and physical assault alleged to have been committed between 1969 and 1980. All of the parties are, as a result of orders made by Curtin AJ, identified by pseudonyms: Simmons (a pseudonym) v Wheeler (a pseudonym) [2023] ACTSC 191.
The sexual and physical assaults alleged to have been inflicted on the first and second plaintiffs by the second and third defendants are alleged to have occurred between 1975 and 1980. In those years, the ages of the relevant parties were:
(a)first plaintiff: 9-14 years;
(b)second plaintiff: 8-13 years;
(c)second defendant:10-15 years; and
(d)third defendant: approximately 10-15 years.
The plaintiffs are the second defendant’s stepsisters.
It is common ground that the events alleged in the pleadings would have occurred in Queensland and, as a consequence, Queensland limitation laws will apply, as they are part of the substantive law of the place of the alleged tort: Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s 56.
The second and third defendants have applied by applications in proceeding dated 16 October 2023 and 10 November 2023 for leave to amend their defences so as to plead s 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld). That is the generally applicable limitation provision relating to personal injury. It…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Simmons (a pseudonym) v Wheeler (a pseudonym) (No 2) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether section 11A of the same Act precluded the statutory limitation defence under section 11. This required careful consideration of the interplay between these sections and the effect of amendments to limitation laws over time. The court held that these questions were better suited for resolution at the trial stage rather than during a preliminary hearing. Consequently, the court allowed the applications to amend the defences to include the statutory limitation defence, deferring the ultimate determination of whether the defence was applicable until the trial.
In its decision, the court emphasised the importance of allowing the parties to present their full cases at trial, where all evidence and arguments could be thoroughly examined. The court found that the questions regarding the application of limitation laws and the effect of legislative amendments were complex and required a detailed factual and legal analysis that could only be adequately addressed during a full trial. As such, the court's decision allowed the defendants to include the statutory limitation defence in their amended defences, but deferred the final determination of this issue to the trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [16]
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.