“Limitation periods are, quite simply, rules of injustice. They are tolerated merely as a practical necessity in our system.” Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? To some, the fact that potential plaintiffs could be prevented from litigating a legitimate claim due to the passing of time may appear contradictory to the values of fairness and access that underpin Australia’s legal system. In civil matters, various statutes provide deadlines for potential plaintiffs to initiate court proceedings following a cause of action. Whilst these limitation periods may provide practical assistance, such as the ensuring that the quality of evidence does not significantly deteriorate, they can also create barriers to justice for those not well versed in the legal system’s procedures. This essay will analyse limitation periods in civil matters heard in the Australian Capital Territory by considering their relationship with some of the principles that underly the rule of law in Australia, namely predictability, accessibility, and equality. Further, …show more content…
The ability to predict how one will be treated contributes to the confidence and certainty the public feels regarding the legal system. Limitation periods can provide substantial predictability and reassurance for potential defendants. An employer in the ACT who is concerned about being liable for a workers compensation claim may be comforted knowing that section 16A of the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) prescribes a three-year post injury period in which the claim can be brought. Although the employer may spend the three years managing their economic resources with the knowledge they could be named as a defendant in legal proceedings, they can then continue with their life once the limitation date has
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The conviction of guilty offenders when adhering to the guidelines of the NSW criminal trial process is not difficult based on the presumption of innocence. However, due to features of the criminal trial process, established by the adversarial system of trial, cases can often involve copious amounts of time and money, particularly evident in the case of R vs Rogerson and McNamara where factors such as time and money are demonstrated to be in excess. In addition, characteristics of the adversarial system such as plea bargaining has the power to hinder convictions due to the accused having the authority to hire experienced and expensive lawyers to argue their case, hence maintaining their innocence.
... limitation is necessary. In addition, it is being seen as taking account every history and context of the case in making decisions, rather simply judging the case according to the words of provisions. Gleeson CJ in Roach also stated the consideration that the historical context and circumstances in the case is also protected by the sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution. Therefore, the decision of the Rowe is consistent with the Constitution’s implied right and the notion of representative democracy in Australia.
Law Foundation, L.F. 1997. A Bill of Rights for Australia - But do we need it? [Online]. [20th December 2016]. Available from:
9. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003). Legal Studies for Queensland, Volume 1, ForthEdition, Legal Eagle Publications: Queensland. 10. Woodgate, R., Black, A., Biggs, J., Owens, D. (2003).
This essay will hold a discussion regarding two main principles: fairness and justice. In particular, to what extent Australian legal system is based on fairness and justice?
Rice, S (2011) ‘Reflections on reforming discrimination laws in Australia’, Human Rights law Centre, viewed 4 October 2011, .
The statute of limitation refers to the length of time in which a plaintiff can file a claim. The principle behind statute of limitation is that lawsuits cannot be improved as time passes by. For one, clear details of the facts can be blurred as memories can fade and witnesses may die, go away, or lose interest of the case. Ideally, court prefers to settle the case as soon as disputes develop (Warner, 2010). However, for professional and product liabilities, with injuries may take time to manifest, many courts adapted different rules such as postponing the running of the statute until the injury has been reasonably discovered.
The case Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd[1] confirms the long held doctrine that employers are vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees during the course of their employment. In comparison to cases such as Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills[2] and Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd[3], which appear to contribute to the development of the application of common law to evolving social conditions, the Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd case may be considered as taking a step back in affirming the traditional notion of ‘control’ when determining the nature of employment relationships. The following will critically analyse the ratio and the legal and commercial implications prevalent in this case.
NSW Government 2014, Courts & Tribunal Services Attorney General & Justice, viewed 30 April 2014, .
One might be surprised to find out that members of the house of representatives and senate are allowed to serve an unlimited number of two and six year terms respectively. There may be many reasons for why term limits were not woven into the constitution originally but one thing is for sure, career politicians are a problem. Creating term limits for congress will not be easy due to the fact that it would require the constitution to be amended. Fortunately, there are two ways of accomplishing this goal. Term limits were a part of the Articles of Confederation but they did not make it into constitution.
The fundamental purpose of the requirement that an originating process (“OP”) be served by personal service, prior to the commencement of proceedings, is to promote procedural fairness and natural justice . This essay will examine personal service in the context of civil procedure and the governing procedural rules pertaining to the personal service of an OP in New South Wales , as outlined in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"). To avoid doubt, unless the context indicates otherwise, “defendant” and “claim” shall include the singular and the plural as an OP may comprise of multiple defendants and/or multiple claims.
The case against a Bill of Rights as shown above includes the fact that it is foreign to our traditions and Australia has survived to date through its existing protection of basic rights. It is argued that a Bill of Right may provide too much power to the judges.
Also, the tort victim is usually sufficiently compensated through insurance rather than if they claimed against the employee as the master has the ‘deepest pocket’[2]. However, recent developments in the law on vicarious liability not only makes the employer liable for acts that are ‘directly’ connected with what they are employed to do, but it is now established that an employer may be liable for the unauthorised acts of an employee, where those acts are ‘closely connected’ with the nature of the wrongdoer’s employment. The principle of vicarious liability can also burden the operation of a business by placing a disproportionate amount of responsibility on an employer. More money needs to be spent on training, employee’s characteristics need to be assessed and higher costs will be passed on to the consumer.
During the nineteenth and early twentieth century if a worker was a victim of workplace accident there was no compensation or requirement of the employer to support rehabilitation. Employers were not responsible for injured workers or accidents that happened in the workplace. The main legal doctrine of Assumption of Risk governed workplace hazards, which required workers to assume and accept all the risks affiliated with their occupation (Share, 2012). In the 1900 's many diseases and injuries resulted due to unsafe or hazardous working condition. "The Royal Commission on the Relations of Labour and Capital reported in 1889 that many workers were being hurt on the job and condemned the state of working conditions in several industries" (CPHA, 2012). However, the federal government at the time did not act on the results of the commission report. In 1914, the province of Ontario introduced legislation where, "workers would be eligible for guaranteed no-fault benefits from a system that was wholly funded by employers. In exchange, employers were freed from legal liability" (CPHA, 2012). This was the first time the idea came up that injured employees should be compensated no matter who was at fault for the accident. This was the sign of the beginnings of change, but perspectives on health and safety still held employees responsible and accountable for all injuries and