Northern Grampians Shire Council v Fox

[2026] VSCA 214

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Limitation of Actions
1. Power to grant extension of time where it is ‘just and reasonable’ under s 23A of Limitation of Actions Act 1958
1. Applicable standard of appellate review
1. Whether legal criterion demands a unique outcome or tolerates a range of outcomes

The standard of appellate review applicable to a decision under s 23A(2) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) to extend a limitation period where it is 'just and reasonable' to do so is the House v The King standard involving judicial restraint, not the Warren v Coombes correctness standard, because the legal criterion tolerates a range of legally permissible outcomes rather than demanding a unique outcome.
The binary nature of a statutory decision (the criterion is either satisfied or not) is an important but not determinative factor in identifying the applicable standard of appellate review; what is critical is whether the legal criterion, properly understood in its statutory context, permits reasonable minds to differ as to the outcome — a question resolved by reference to the breadth of the evaluative power, legislative history, subject matter, and whether any systemic imperative demands a single answer.
The line of demarcation between the two standards of appellate review articulated in SZVFW requires consideration of whether the proper functioning of the legal system demands that only one outcome be tolerated — as it does for questions of jurisdictional limits (SZVFW), abuse of process (GLJ), and mandatory exclusion of unfairly prejudicial evidence (Moore) — or whether different judges may legitimately reach different conclusions, as with the open-ended evaluative synthesis required by s 23A.