› Abuse of process – delay – whether actual prejudice established – permanent stay as last resort
Civil procedure
› Pleadings
› Amendment after limitation period – UCPR r 376(4) – new cause of action – whether arising out of substantially the same facts
Consumer law
› Australian Consumer Law
› Limitation period under s 236(2) – interaction with State procedural rules – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 79
Consumer law
› Manufacturer liability
› Actions against manufacturers under ss 271 and 272 – consumer guarantees under ss 54–56
Quick Take
1A permanent stay for delay in civil proceedings is an exceptional remedy of last resort requiring proof of actual, not merely possible, prejudice making a fair trial impossible or the proceeding oppressive. On the facts, no stay was warranted where the action was commenced within time, the defendants had known of the defect and its remediation since 2016, no lost evidence or witnesses were shown, and the applicant itself delayed its application while consenting to procedural orders.
2UCPR r 376(4) is a procedural law picked up by s 79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and is not inconsistent with the six-year limitation period in s 236(2) of the Australian Consumer Law. A new ACL cause of action may therefore be added after that period expires if it arises out of the same or substantially the same facts (the same 'story') and leave is appropriate; Owners – Units Plan 4321 v Victory Homes Pty Ltd [2024] ACTSC 337 was not followed.
3A right to equitable contribution or indemnity between co-obligors does not accrue until payment or judgment, and s 10(6) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) excludes equitable relief except by analogy. A defendant served late in the limitation period is therefore not precluded from seeking contribution from a co-defendant.
