MANN v COMMONWEALTH [2001] NSWCA 236

MANN v COMMONWEALTH [2001] NSWCA 236

The causes of action accrued in March or October 1987 and were statute-barred by the time proceedings commenced in 1994. No fraudulent concealment sufficient to delay the limitation period was established, and the cause of action for breach of confidence, if any, lay with the company, not Mr Mann personally. The appeal was dismissed as the limitation period had expired and there was no basis for the fraud exception to apply.

Parties
Appellant: Christopher Peter Mann; Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia; Respondent: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Fraud Exception, Breach of Confidence, Vicarious Liability, Statute Barred Actions
Limitation of Actions Torts Contract Law Equity Limitation Periods Fraud Exception Breach of Confidence Vicarious Liability +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Peter Mann

Appellant

Commonwealth of Australia

Respondent

State of New South Wales

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether causes of action were statute-barred under the Limitation Act
  2. 2 Whether the fraud exception in s 55 of the Limitation Act applies
  3. 3 Whether a cause of action for breach of confidence accrued to the appellant personally or his company

Ratio Decidendi

The causes of action accrued in March or October 1987 and were statute-barred by the time proceedings commenced in 1994. No fraudulent concealment sufficient to delay the limitation period was established, and the cause of action for breach of confidence, if any, lay with the company, not Mr Mann personally. The appeal was dismissed as the limitation period had expired and there was no basis for the fraud exception to apply.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs