Geoffrey John Thomas Brear v James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd & Anor

(2000) 50 NSWLR 388; [2000] NSWCA 352

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Conflict of Laws
2. › Choice of law
3. › Limitation periods
4. › Characterisation of limitation laws as substantive or procedural
5. › Whether choice of law statute displaced by later tribunal-specific statute removing limitation periods
6. › Choice of Law (Limitation Provisions) Act 1993 (NSW), s 5
7. › Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW), s 12A
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Reconciliation of competing statutory provisions
4. › Implied repeal
5. › Whether later specific provision impliedly repeals earlier general provision
6. › Use of Second Reading speeches
7. › Restraint in construing enactment by reference to Minister's speech as to intended effect as distinct from mischief
1. Damages
2. › Personal injury
3. › Loss of earning capacity
4. › Whether tribunal of fact erred in law in refusing award
5. › No evidence about availability of remunerative work in area where plaintiff lives
6. › Onus of proof

Quick Take

Section 12A of the Dust Diseases Tribunal Act 1989 (NSW), which removes limitation periods for dust disease claims, does not displace the Choice of Law (Limitation Provisions) Act 1993 (NSW). Interstate limitation periods continue to apply as substantive law to interstate tort claims litigated in the Dust Diseases Tribunal. The Choice of Law Act is a choice of law statute, not a 'statute of limitations' within the meaning of s 12A(2).