Hillebrand v Penrith Council [2000] NSWSC 1058

Hillebrand v Penrith Council [2000] NSWSC 1058

The loss suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the conveyances by the Council occurred in February and April 1993, and time under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14(1)(b) commenced running then; as the proceedings were commenced over six years later, the cause of action in negligence causing economic loss is statute barred and cannot succeed, justifying summary dismissal under Pt 13 r 5.

Parties
Plaintiff: Bernard Hillebrand; Plaintiff: Lindy Gai Hillebrand; First Defendant: The Council of the City of Penrith; Second Defendant: Richard Mork; Third Defendant: The Registrar General of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory (summary Dismissal Application)
Outcome
Summary dismissal of part of proceedings (negligence-economic loss claim)
Legal Topics
Negligence, Economic Loss, Limitation of Actions, Summary Dismissal, Statutory Powers of Councils
Tort Law Civil Procedure Negligence Economic Loss Limitation of Actions Summary Dismissal Statutory Powers of Councils

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernard Hillebrand

Plaintiff

Lindy Gai Hillebrand

Plaintiff

The Council of the City of Penrith

First Defendant

Richard Mork

Second Defendant

The Registrar General of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory (summary Dismissal Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cause of action in negligence causing economic loss against the Council was statute barred under s 14(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 15 to 18 of the Statement of Claim disclose a reasonable cause of action in light of the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether the rules for summary dismissal may be used where a limitation period is clearly applicable

Ratio Decidendi

The loss suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the conveyances by the Council occurred in February and April 1993, and time under the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) s 14(1)(b) commenced running then; as the proceedings were commenced over six years later, the cause of action in negligence causing economic loss is statute barred and cannot succeed, justifying summary dismissal under Pt 13 r 5.

Court Disposition

Summary dismissal of part of proceedings (negligence-economic loss claim)

Orders

  • The claim for relief in paragraphs 15 to 18 and consequential claims for relief in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim are dismissed under Pt 13 r 5.
  • Costs of the application to follow the event.