TIMENY v BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC No. 367 of 1991 Judgment No. 2961 Number of pages - 15 Limitation of actions (1992) 56 SASR 287

(1992) 56 SASR 287; [1991] SASC 2961

Supreme Court of South Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Limitation of Actions
2. › International conventions
3. › Warsaw Convention
4. › Article 29
5. › Two-year limitation period
6. › Whether limitation period extinguishes right or merely bars remedy
7. › Whether State limitation extension power applies to Commonwealth time limits
8. › Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth), s 11
9. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79
1. Constitutional Law (Cth)
2. › Federal jurisdiction
3. › State laws applied in federal jurisdiction
4. › Section 79 Judiciary Act
5. › Whether State procedural law picked up
6. › Whether State law extending time limits applies to time limits imposed by Commonwealth statute
7. › Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › International conventions
3. › Interpretation of conventions incorporated into domestic law
4. › Broad principles of general acceptation
5. › Reference to decisions of courts of other contracting parties
6. › Warsaw Convention, Art 29
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Extension of time
3. › Whether power to extend time under State Act applies to Commonwealth Acts
4. › Meaning of 'Act' in s 48(1)
5. › Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA), s 48(1)
6. › Acts Interpretation Act (SA), s 4

Quick Take

The two-year limitation period in Article 29 of the Warsaw Convention is absolute and cannot be extended by State limitation extension provisions. The period extinguishes the right to damages, not merely the remedy, and s 48(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) does not on its true construction apply to time limits imposed by Commonwealth legislation. State courts exercising federal jurisdiction cannot invoke s 79 of the Judiciary Act to pick up State extension powers for time limits imposed directly by federal law.