Scotland v Bargen [1982] HCA 22

Scotland v Bargen [1982] HCA 22

The Queensland limitation defence was not available to S.G.I.O. because, consistently with Pedersen v. Young, the relevant Queensland limitation legislation applied only to actions instituted in Queensland and s. 79 of the Judiciary Act did not alter its meaning. In any event, s. 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Q. did not apply to contribution claims between tortfeasors, which were dealt with by s. 40.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings With Third Party Claim for Contribution or Indemnity / Application by the First Defendant for Determination of a Point of Law Concerning a Limitation Defence
Outcome
Application allowed; Queensland limitation defence declared inapplicable to the first defendant's contribution or indemnity proceedings against the State Government Insurance Office.
Legal Topics
['applicability of Queensland Limitation Legislation to High Court Proceedings Instituted Outside Queensland' 'third Party Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'judiciary Act S. 79' 'motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Claim']
['limitation of Actions' 'negligence' 'civil Procedure' 'conflict of Laws'] ['applicability of Queensland Limitation Legislation to High Court Proceedings Instituted Outside Queensland' 'third Party Claim for Contribution or Indemnity' 'judiciary Act S. 79' 'motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Claim']

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

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence Proceedings With Third Party Claim for Contribution or Indemnity / Application by the First Defendant for Determination of a Point of Law Concerning a Limitation Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether s. 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Q. was available to the State Government Insurance Office as a defence to the first defendant's claim for contribution or indemnity in proceedings instituted outside Queensland." 'Whether s. 79 of the Judiciary Act made the Queensland limitation provision applicable in the High Court proceedings.' 'Whether s. 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Q. applied to claims for contribution as between tortfeasors.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Queensland limitation defence was not available to S.G.I.O. because, consistently with Pedersen v. Young, the relevant Queensland limitation legislation applied only to actions instituted in Queensland and s. 79 of the Judiciary Act did not alter its meaning. In any event, s. 11 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Q. did not apply to contribution claims between tortfeasors, which were dealt with by s. 40.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; Queensland limitation defence declared inapplicable to the first defendant's contribution or indemnity proceedings against the State Government Insurance Office.

Orders

  • ['Declare that the provisions of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 Q. are inapplicable as a defence to the proceedings for contribution or indemnity brought by the first defendant against the State Government Insurance Office.' "Order that the State Government Insurance Office pay the first defendant's taxed costs...