Limitation issues in mental harm claims

  • 29 May 2017

Whilst not a medical negligence case, this interlocutory decision of the Supreme Court of NSW (Odell v State of New South Wales [2017] NSWSC 643 provides some important reminders in relation to limitation issues in mental harm claims.

In this matter a former long-serving police officer makes a claim for mental harm arising from his duties as a police officer. The plaintiff ceased work in around 2008 and was medically retired in December 2011. Proceedings were commenced in December 2014. The defendant asserts that the matter is statute barred by virtue of the provisions of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).

Whilst the Court was unable to make a determination on the defendant’s motion seeking to have the matter dismissed for want of due dispatch as the pleadings required amendment to better define limitation issue before it could be determined, the Court made the following comments which are worth keeping in mind in mental harm matters which have a potential limitation defence:

  1. the Court of Appeal decision on Commonwealth of Australia v Smith [2005] NSWCA 478 is authority for the proposition that the cause of action does not arise until the recognised diagnosable psychiatric injury has arisen;
  2. a defendant who raises the limitation issue has the burden of proof and is required to establish that the matter is futile as the plaintiff will not be able to overcome the statutory bar (Pullen v Gutteridge Haskins & Davey Pty Ltd [1993] 1 VR 27 at 71 – 72); and
  3. where a claim relates to facts occurring over many decades it may be that any determination of a limitation defence cannot be made in an interlocutory application and can only be determined at trial (Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514).
Post by Karen Kumar

Most Popular Articles


When can the unqualified be qualified? Non-lawyers engaging in legal practice - when is it OK and when is the law broken

Only lawyers can provide legal advice, but anyone can provide legal information. When thinking of the difference, you might ask your friend or colleague to provide information about a serious illness; however you would seek out a qualified medical professional in relation to its treatment.

Service of Notices by Registered Post

Where service of a notice is authorised or required by post, unless the contrary intention appears, service will be deemed to be effected at the time when the notice would be delivered in the ordinary course of post: see the various Acts Interpretation acts of the States and Commonwealth.

Thanks, but no thanks – I don’t want to inherit

It seems odd that anybody would reject an inheritance, but for some beneficiaries, there are valid reasons they do not wish to receive their inheritance.

Subscribe to Our Blog

Keeping you connected, Hicksons regularly publishes articles to keep you up to date on the latest developments. To receive these updates via email, please subscribe below and indicate which areas of law you would like to receive information on.