Brisbane City Council v AmosCitation:[2019] HCA 27Before:Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle, Edelman JJDate:04 Sep 2019Case Number:B47/2018Read more

Section 26(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) applies to exclude the operation of s 10(1)(d) where the claim is for a principal sum of money secured by a charge, even if the claim also falls within s 10(1)(d).

Parties: Applicant: Council; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 04 September 2019
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment
Outcome: Claim allowed under s 26(1), s 10(1)(d) excluded.
Legal Topics: Debts Created by Statute, Debts Secured by Charge, Limitation Periods, Statutory Interpretation

Limitation of Actions Statutory Debt Recovery Debts Created by Statute Debts Secured by Charge Limitation Periods Statutory Interpretation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Council

Applicant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claim for overdue rates and charges is an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment under s 10(1)(d) of Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
2 Whether the claim is an action to recover a principal sum of money secured by a charge and subject to s 26(1) of the Act
3 Whether s 26(1) applies to exclude operation of s 10(1)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim allowed under s 26(1), s 10(1)(d) excluded.

Orders

Council's claim for overdue rates and charges is not statute-barred under s 10(1)(d) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld).
Proceeding to recover the principal sum secured by charge is permitted.