FORREST V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND (ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) HC AK CIV-2009-404-002074
The District Court erred in treating the claim as time-barred because the appellant was a minor and the correct limitation expiry is 28 September 2009; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for rehearing on the correct accrual date (28 September 2003).
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-b0399273_91f9_43ee_b4a9_71f4d424d369.pdf
- Parties
- Appellant: Brendon Douglas Forrest; Respondent: The Attorney-General of New Zealand (on behalf of the Department of Corrections)
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 29 April 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal From District Court / Oral Judgment Allowing Appeal and Remitting Matter to District Court for Rehearing
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the District Court for rehearing
- Legal Topics
- Limitation Periods, Minority Tolling, Accrual of Cause of Action, Rehearing/remittal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Brendon Douglas Forrest
Appellant
The Attorney-General of New Zealand (on behalf of the Department of Corrections)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From District Court / Oral Judgment Allowing Appeal and Remitting Matter to District Court for Rehearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the claim is time-barred under s 4(7) of the Limitation Act 1950
- 2 When the cause of action accrued for a plaintiff who was a minor
- 3 Whether the District Court erred by proceeding on an incorrect limitation expiry date
Ratio Decidendi
The District Court erred in treating the claim as time-barred because the appellant was a minor and the correct limitation expiry is 28 September 2009; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for rehearing on the correct accrual date (28 September 2003).
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the District Court for rehearing
Orders
- Direction under r 20.19 of the High Court Rules that the District Court is to rehear Mr Forrest's application for leave on grounds that the alleged cause of action accrued on 28 September 2003
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FORREST V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND (ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) HC AK CIV-2009-404-002074 29 April 2009IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-002074 BRENDON DOUGLAS FORRESTAppellant vTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND (ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)Respondent Hearing: 29 April 2009 Appearances: Appellant in Person P Singh for Respondent Judgment: 29 April 2009ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING JSolicitors: Crown Solicitor, Auckland Copy to: Brendon Forrest, Auckland Prison[1] This is an appeal from a decision of the District Court, dated 3 December 2008 finding that the appellant Mr Forrest's claim is barred by s 4(7) of the Limitation Act 1950. [2] The respondent has filed a memorandum in which he accepts that at the time of the injury, which forms the basis of the claim, Mr Forrest was under the age of majority. Indeed he did not reach the age of 20 until 28 September 2003. The time period provided in the Limitation Act therefore does not expire until 28 September 2009. The hearing in the District Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption, namely that the time period expired on 3 December 2007. [3] For those reasons the appeal must be allowed. There will be a direction under r 20.19 of the High Court Rules that the District Court is to rehear Mr Forrest's application for leave on grounds that the alleged cause of action accrued on 28 September 2003. __________________________ Venning J