Zhang v State of New South Wales; Liao v State of New South Wales

In the case of Zhang v State of New South Wales and Liao v State of New South Wales, the plaintiffs, Zhang and Liao, brought claims against the State of New South Wales for personal injury sustained during their detention in the state's custody. The defendants argued that certain claims were statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), specifically section 13, and sought to dismiss the claims on this basis. The court had to determine whether the claims were statute-barred and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 65(2)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to allow the claims to proceed. Additionally, the defendants raised a defence of malicious prosecution in relation to some of the claims.

The court considered the applicable limitation period for the personal injury claims, which was three years from the date the cause of action accrued. The court assessed whether the plaintiffs' claims were filed within this period and whether there were any circumstances that could extend the limitation period. The court also examined the malicious prosecution claims, determining whether they fell within the limitation period and if they were within the court's discretion to allow them to proceed. Ultimately, the court found that certain claims were indeed statute-barred and dismissed them accordingly. The malicious prosecution claims, however, were deemed to be within the limitation period and were allowed to proceed.

The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for personal injury were statute-barred as they were not filed within the three-year limitation period. The court found that the plaintiffs' claims were not exceptional enough to warrant an extension of the limitation period under section 65(2)(c) of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The malicious prosecution claims, however, were found to be within the limitation period and were allowed to proceed. The court dismissed the motions to strike out the statute-barred claims and awarded costs to the defendants.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the statute-barred claims and allowed the malicious prosecution claims to proceed. The court awarded costs to the defendants for the statute-barred claims. The plaintiffs' claims for personal injury were struck out, and the court determined that the malicious prosecution claims were within the limitation period and could proceed to trial.