Strano v Australian Capital Territory

The appeal concerned a dispute between Mr Strano and the Australian Capital Territory. The primary issue on appeal was whether the limitation period applicable to a claim brought under the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT) was the same as that for a claim in tort. The matter came before the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, Court of Appeal.

The Court was required to determine whether the *Limitation Act 1985* (ACT) applied to a claim for breach of statutory duty under the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT), or if the claim was to be treated as a claim in tort for the purposes of the *Limitation Act*. This distinction was critical as the limitation period for tortious claims was shorter than that for other civil actions.

The Court reasoned that the *Human Rights Act 2004* created a cause of action that was distinct from a common law tort. While there might be overlap in the factual circumstances giving rise to both types of claims, the statutory cause of action was based on the breach of a statutory duty to respect human rights, rather than the breach of a duty of care recognised at common law. Consequently, the Court held that the limitation period for tortious actions under the *Limitation Act 1985* (ACT) did not apply to claims brought under the *Human Rights Act 2004* (ACT).

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the primary judge for determination of the substantive issues.