Wilson v Rigg

The case of Wilson v Rigg involved the plaintiff, Wilson, suing the defendant, Rigg, a solicitor, for failing to bring a personal injury claim within the statutory limitation period. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues were whether the statute of limitations barred the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor, and if not, when any potential cause of action against the solicitor accrued. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether a cause of action accrued after the initial limitation period expired, and if so, whether it was when the statute was pleaded in the original proceedings or when an application to extend that time was lost.

The court examined the relevant statutes and legal principles concerning limitation periods in professional negligence claims. It concluded that the cause of action against the solicitor did not accrue when the statute was first pleaded, as that would have been within the initial limitation period. Instead, the court held that the cause of action accrued when the application to extend the limitation period was lost. The court further found that there was a separate cause of action for the solicitor's failure to promptly and carefully bring the application for an extension of time. This additional cause of action arose when the application was lost, which was outside the original limitation period.

Based on these findings, the court ruled that the plaintiff's claim against the solicitor was not statute-barred. It determined that the limitation period for the professional negligence claim began when the application for an extension of time was lost, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed. The court made orders to that effect, dismissing the defendant's defence of limitation and allowing the plaintiff's action to continue.