The Court held that the Local Court erred in summarily dismissing the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred where no limitation defence had been pleaded and the plaintiff had not been given adequate opportunity to explore potential answers to that defence, including confirmation under s 54 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). The Court also held that the October 2017 document constituted a binding contract, as the compromise of an actual or asserted entitlement to money owed was good consideration, but that the amended statement of claim was nonetheless deficient in failing to properly identify the cause of action and should be struck out with leave to replead. The question of whether the claim was ultimately statute-barred was left unresolved, with the Court emphasising that limitation questions should not be determined summarily except in the clearest of cases, particularly where s 54 acknowledgment arguments had not been explored.
The full text is available to signed-in members.