Gould v NSW [2005] NSWSC 1121

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Gould v NSW [2005] NSWSC 1121

HEARING DATE(S) : 15 & 16 June 2004

JUDGMENT DATE : 15 November 2005

JURISDICTION : Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF : Hidden J at 1

DECISION : Application granted in part.

CATCHWORDS : LIMITATION ACT: application for extension of time - action by former police officer for damages for psychological injury - effects of incidents during police service, including Wood Royal Commission - whether viable cause of action - whether adequate explanation for delay

Crown Proceedings Act 1988 LEGISLATION CITED : Limitation Act 1969 ss 18A, 60C, 60E, 60G

Yu v Speirs [2001] NSWCA 373 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 State of NSW v Paige (2002) 60 NSWLR 371 CASES CITED : Williams v Minister, Aboriginal Land Rights Act (1994) 35 NSWLR 497 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 ASB-Tech Services Pty Ltd v Doeland & Anor [2003] NSWCA 167 Holt v Wynter (2000) 49 NSWLR 128

Peter Gould PARTIES : State of New South Wales

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 20334/2000

G Melick SC/J Berg (Plaintiff) COUNSEL : G Laughton SC/N Newton (Defendant)

Marsdens Law Group (Plaintiff) SOLICITORS : Crown Solicitors Office (Defendant)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HIDDEN J

15 November 2005

20334/2000 Peter Gould v State of New South Wales

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Peter Gould, is a former police officer. He has brought proceedings in this Court, pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act 1988, for damages for psychological injury said to have been suffered as a result of a number of incidents during his police service. The statement of claim was filed outside the three year limitation period set by s18A of the Limitation Act 1969. He seeks an extension of time under s60C of that Act. Another former police officer, Stephen Anthony Reeves, has made a similar application: Reeves v State of NSW [2005] NSWSC 1138. There is some similarity between the background and the issues raised by the two applications, and they were heard together. However, Mr Reeves' application will be the subject of a separate judgment.