LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATION
PERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – where
the plaintiff
sold teeth whitening products to Australian consumers – where in February
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – EXTENSION OR POSTPONEMENT OF LIMITATIONPERIODS – OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION AND MATTERS – wherethe plaintiffsold teeth whitening products to Australian consumers – where in February2012 a compulsory recall notice wasissued in respect of two of theplaintiff’s products and the second and third defendants publicised the
recall – where
the plaintiff commenced an action for defamation almost 14
months after the alleged defamation – where the plaintiff applied
for an
extension of the limitation period pursuant to s 32A Limitations of Actions
Act 1974 (Qld) to pursue the claim for damages for defamation –
whether in the circumstances the plaintiff satisfied the court
that
thelimitation period should be extendedLimitation of Actions Act
1974 (Qld), s 10AA, s 32ANoonan v MacLennan [2010] 2 Qd R
537
[2010] QCA 50, followedPingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd
[2010] QCA 175, consideredMowen v The Morning Bulletin/APN & Ors
[2013] QCA 36, considered
Judgment (1 paragraphs)
[1]
The application to extend the limitation period for the claims for damages for defamation is dismissed.
Costs reserved.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Pro Teeth Whitening (Aust) Pty Limited
Respondent/Defendant:
Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2014] QSC 107
Legislation Cited (3)
Competition and Consumer Act 2004(Cth)
Actions Act 1974
Management and Accountability Act 1997
Cases Cited (4)
[4] The plaintiff challenged the validity of these decisions made by the second defendant by applying for judicial review in the Federal Circuit Court. The judicial review application was dismissed in the Federal Circuit Court on 9 May 2013: Pro Teeth Whitening (Aust) Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury MP [2013] FCCA 188. The plaintiff appealed successfully to the Federal Court which made its decision on 20 December 2013: Pro Teeth Whitening (Aust) Pty Ltd v Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury MP [2013] FCA 1376.
[8] Section 32A was introduced into the Act by the DA. It was considered by the Court of Appeal in Noonan v MacLennan [2010] QCA 50; [2010] 2 Qd R 537 where Keane JA observed at [15]-[17]:**
**See also Pingel v Toowoomba Newspapers Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 175 at [34] per Fraser JA.
**[13] The same approach was taken in Mowen v The Morning Bulletin/APN & Ors [2013] QCA 36 at [14] per Dalton J, where the appellant who appeared for himself was unsuccessful in relying on his ignorance of the limitation period and his difficulty in informing himself of the law.