Waldron v O'Callaghan

[2024] VSCA 196

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Personal injury actions
3. › Date of discoverability
4. › Knowledge of fault
5. › Meaning of 'fault' in s 27F(1)(b)
6. › Whether knowledge requires awareness of key factors necessary to establish legal liability or merely suspicion of culpability
7. › Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), ss 27D, 27F
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Personal injury actions
3. › Date of discoverability
4. › Constructive knowledge
5. › Whether plaintiff ought to have known of fault
6. › Steps reasonably required of plaintiff in particular circumstances
7. › Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), s 27F(2)
1. Limitation of Actions
2. › Extension of limitation period
3. › Just and reasonable
4. › Factors to be considered
5. › Standard of appellate review
6. › Whether correctness standard or House v The King discretionary standard applies
7. › Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), ss 27K, 27L
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Distinction between evaluative decisions admitting of one correct answer and discretionary decisions
4. › Whether extension of limitation period is discretionary
5. › GLJ v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32 considered

Quick Take

For the purposes of s 27F(1)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), 'fault' requires knowledge of the key factors necessary to establish legal liability, not merely a belief, suspicion or grievance. A plaintiff's suspicion — even when communicated to solicitors — does not constitute the requisite knowledge. The House v The King discretionary standard applies to appeals from decisions to extend limitation periods under s 27K, following Brisbane South and Prince Alfred College, notwithstanding the correctness standard's expansion in GLJ and related cases.