Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Commonwealth of Australia v Gill [1999] FCA 1659 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL – limitation of actions – relevance of the plaintiff's predisposition to injury and whether there was prejudice to the defendant attributable to delay on the part of the plaintiff. LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – plaintiff in receipt of employees' compensation – relevance thereof on issue of prejudice – delay in pleading limitation defence. Limitation Act 1985 (ACT), s 36(2) Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 44
Georgiadis v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (1994) 179 CLR 297, followed Commonwealth v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR 471, followed Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, cited Sydney City Council v Zegarac (1998) 43 NSWLR 195, referred to
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA v STEVEN JAMES GILL
A 61 OF 1999
GALLOP, HILL and GYLES JJ
CANBERRA
1 DECEMBER 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY A 61 OF 1999
DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant
AND: STEVEN JAMES GILL
Respondent
JUDGE: GALLOP, HILL and GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE: CANBERRA
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the costs of the respondent. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY A 61 OF 1999
DISTRICT REGISTRY
BETWEEN: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Applicant AND: STEVEN JAMES GILL
Respondent
JUDGE: GALLOP, HILL and GYLES JJ
DATE: 1 DECEMBER 1999
PLACE: CANBERRA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT THE COURT: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory granting Steven James Gill ("the respondent") an extension of time within which to bring an action against the Commonwealth of Australia ("the applicant") under s 36(2) of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) ("the Act"). The Court heard full argument as on the appeal against the eventuality that leave might be granted.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate