Stingel v Clark [2006] HCA 37

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GLEESON CJ

GUMMOW, KIRBY, HAYNE, CALLINAN, HEYDON AND CRENNAN JJ

CAROL ANNE STINGEL APPELLANT

AND

GEOFFREY CLARK RESPONDENT

Stingel v Clark [2006] HCA 37

20 July 2006

M153/2005

ORDER

1. Appeal allowed with costs.

2. Set aside orders 2 and 3 of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria made on 12 May 2005 (as amended by order made on 8 June 2005) and, in their place, order that the appeal to that Court is dismissed with costs.

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria

Representation

R P Gorton QC with T J Seccull for the appellant (instructed by Maurice Blackburn Cashman)

R J Stanley QC with C M O'Neill for the respondent (instructed by Coadys)

T J Casey QC with J H L Forrest QC and A J M Moulds seeking leave to intervene on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

J H Kennan SC with K D Mueller seeking leave to intervene on behalf of Carl Henning Wright (instructed by Hollows Lawyers)

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Stingel v Clark

Limitation of Actions – Appellant alleged respondent had raped and assaulted her in 1971 – Appellant alleged that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder of delayed onset in 2000 and became aware of the connection between this disorder and the rapes and assaults in the same year – Proceedings were commenced for trespass to the person in 2002 by which time the general limitation period of six years for commencing actions in tort stipulated in s 5(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (Vic) ("the Act") had expired – Whether s 5(1A) of the Act applied to extend the limitation period from the date she first knew of those injuries and their causal connection – Whether a trespass to the person is an action for a "breach of duty" – Whether the injury alleged is a "disease or disorder contracted".