Giles v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] NSWSC 83

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Giles v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] NSWSC 83 Hearing dates: 06/06/2012, 07/06/2012, 29/08/2012, 13/12/2012, 22/02/2013, 12/03/2013 (written submissions) Decision date: 21 February 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: (1) Amended Notice of Motion of first defendant filed 6 June 2012 be dismissed. (2) Amended Notice of Motion of second defendant filed 8 May 2012 be dismissed. (3) Further Amended Notice of Motion of third defendant filed 30 May 2012 be dismissed. (4) Order that the hearing and determination of the pleaded limitation issue take place at the same time as, and as part of, the final hearing of the plaintiffs' claim. (5) Notice of Motion of plaintiffs filed 3 December 2010 be otherwise dismissed. (6) Costs reserved. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory issues - representative action commenced - whether discontinuance of representative proceedings should be ordered - s 166 Civil Procedure Act 2005- whether costs of representative proceedings likely to exceed costs of separate proceedings - whether all relief can be obtained by means of proceedings other than representative proceedings - whether representative proceedings will to provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims of the group members - whether representative proceedings not resolving all issues in dispute is a sufficient basis for discontinuance - whether interests of justice for representation proceedings to be discontinued

PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory issues - extensions of time - Limitation Act 1623 (Imp) - Limitation Act 1969 s 60G - whether separate question or determination for trial - representative proceedings commenced - time not common issue - whether appropriate to hear an issue applicable to named plaintiffs and not group members before principal issues - whether likely to increase delay and prejudice - whether would require duplication of evidence - whether would increase party costs and impact upon judicial resources - whether separate determination would best advance the overriding purpose of the Civil Procedure Act Legislation Cited: Child Welfare Act 1923 Child Welfare Act 1939 Civil Liability Act 2002 Civil Procedure Act 2005 Courts and Crime Legislation Further Amendment Act 2010 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Limitation Act 1969 (Cth) Limitations Act 1601 (Imp) (21 Jac.1.c16) Statute of Limitations 1623 (Imp) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Cases Cited: Bright v Femcare Ltd [2002] FCAFC 243; (2002) 195 ALR 574 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996] HCA 2; (1996) 186 CLR 541 Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd v Carnie (1992) 29 NSWLR 382 Guglielmin v Trescowthick (No.2) [2005] FCA 138; (2005) 220 ALR 515 Merck Sharp & Dohm (Australia) Pty Ltd v Peterson [2009] FCAFC 26 Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Sydney v Ellis (2001) 70 NSWLR 565 Yu v Speirs [2001] NSWCA 373 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Geraldine Dorothy Giles (P1) Vivian Catherine Drady (P2 Commonwealth of Australia (D1) State of NSW (D3) The Fairbridge Foundation (D4) Representation: Counsel: P Semmler QC / A R Cheshire (P) R Stanley QC / D Brogan (D1) C Bridge SC / M Lynch (D2) M Blake SC / J Lonergan (D3) Solicitors: Slater & Gordon (P1, P2) Australian Government Solicitor (D1) NSW Crown Solicitor (D2) Emil Ford & Co (D3) File Number(s): 2009/329777