Casey v Alcock

[2009] ACTCA 1

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Personal injury
3. › Confirmation or acknowledgment of cause of action
4. › Whether admission of liability made pursuant to statutory obligation constitutes confirmation
5. › Whether admission involuntary where made under statutory duty
6. › Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s 16B, s 32
7. › Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 61(1)(b)(i)
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Personal injury
3. › Implied repeal or reading down
4. › Whether later statute impliedly repeals or requires reading down of earlier acknowledgment provision
5. › Nature of inconsistency between Acts
6. › Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s 32
7. › Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), Pt 5
1. Statutes
2. › Construction
3. › Purposive interpretation
4. › Scope of s 139 of the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT)
5. › Whether equivalent to s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK)
6. › Legislation Act 2001 (ACT), s 139
7. › Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA

Quick Take

An admission of liability made by an insurer under s 61(1)(b)(i) of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) constitutes a confirmation of the cause of action under s 32 of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), with the consequence that the period before the admission does not count in reckoning the three-year limitation period under s 16B. The fact that the admission is made pursuant to a statutory obligation does not render it involuntary or exclude it from the operation of s 32. Section 139 of the Legislation Act 2001 (ACT) does not authorise the broad interpretive approach taken under s 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK) in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza.