Lowe Pty Ltd v Belgravia Nominees Pty Ltd

[2020] WASCA 180

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Extension of limitation period
3. › Fraudulent or other improper conduct of defendant
4. › Proper construction of 'other improper conduct'
5. › Whether moral turpitude required
6. › Whether ordinary meaning of 'improper' applies
7. › Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 38(2)
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Extension of limitation period
3. › Fraudulent or other improper conduct of defendant
4. › Application to facts
5. › Whether failure to provide invoices and stonewalling requests for information constituted improper conduct
6. › Whether failure to commence proceedings attributable to improper conduct
7. › Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 38(2)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis
3. › Whether general words following specific word limited to same genus
4. › Effect of Interpretation Act 1984 (WA), s 17
5. › Limitation Act 2005 (WA), s 38(2)
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Evaluative judgments
4. › Whether conduct answers statutory description
5. › Correctness standard applies rather than House v The King standard

Quick Take

'Other improper conduct' in s 38(2) of the Limitation Act 2005 (WA) bears its ordinary meaning of conduct not in accordance with propriety, and does not require moral turpitude akin to fraud. The impropriety must relate to the purpose or tendency of the conduct to deprive a prospective plaintiff of the reasonable opportunity to commence proceedings within the limitation period. A breach of contract, duty of care or fiduciary duty is neither necessary nor sufficient. The question is evaluative and attracts the correctness standard of appellate review.