//
[2025] ACTSC 223
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of the ACT
2025-05-30
McCallum CJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: the ACT Courts (www.courts.act.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: Arjonilla v ACT Citation: [2025] ACTSC 223 Hearing Date: 30 May 2025 Decision Date: 30 May 2025 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: See [5]. Catchwords: CIVIL LAW – practice and procedure – personal injury – s 79 Civil Law (Wrongs) Act – whether urgent need to commence proceedings Legislation Cited: Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Ch 5, s 79 Parties: Lesley Arjonilla (Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory (Defendant) Representation: Counsel D Richards (Plaintiff) A Oritz (Defendant) Solicitors United Legal (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor (Defendant) File Number: SC 359 of 2024 McCALLUM CJ: EX TEMPORE REASONS (REVISED)
These are proceedings for damages for personal injuries that the plaintiff claims were suffered by them when they tripped and fell on the premises of the defendant. The proceedings were commenced by originating claim filed on 30 October 2024, in circumstances where it was apprehended that the limitation period was about to expire. The injury or accident the subject of the claim occurred on 3 November 2021. However, the plaintiff did not approach her lawyers until 21 June 2024, hence the risk of butting up against the expiration of the limitation period.
After the commencement of proceedings, the defendant filed an application for a stay to allow the pre-trial procedures in Chapter 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) to be complied with. That stay was granted in chambers by Mossop J by consent and endured until 16 April 2025. In the meantime, however, it was necessary for the plaintiff to regularise the commencement of proceedings without the leave required under s 79 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act. Mossop J recorded on the bench sheet at the time the stay was ordered by consent that that application remained undetermined. It is before the Court today and is not opposed, although the defendant has not consented to the making of the order.
In circumstances where there is affirmative consent the Registrar has power to deal with the application, but where a party takes the neutral position of neither consenting nor opposing, as the Territory has in the present case, the matter must be referred to the civil applications judge.
I am satisfied on the strength of the affidavit read in support of the application that there was an urgent need to commence proceedings to obviate the risk of their becoming statute-barred. Accordingly, I am persuaded that it is appropriate to grant the leave sought, which will regularise the proceedings. The parties have happily now reached a position where they are in agreement that the Chapter 5 procedures have been completed and, accordingly, the operation of s 79(3) will not give effect to any stay in the present proceedings. In those circumstances, the parties have agreed to future directions for the conduct of the proceedings and those are by consent.
Orders
Arjonilla
ACT [2025] ACTSC 223