© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1993] FCA 352
Federal Court of Australia
1993-07-28
French J, Wilcox J, Pincus J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Application of the Limitation Act 1935-1978 (WA) to the Present Claim
23. Assuming that it can be transmitted and applied by virtue of s.79 of the Judiciary Act 1903 to actions in this Court, s.38(1)(a)(i) of the (WA) must still be found to apply to the particular claim in issue. For the reasons outlined earlier this would require that the action to enforce the determination of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be characterised as a penalty claim. In my opinion, for the reasons I have given already, the claim under the is for compensatory and remedial relief only. It is not a penalty action. The question whether s.79 operates to apply the Act or s.38 in this Court therefore does not arise. For even assuming their applicability to a cause of action brought in this Court under a Federal statute, the provisions of s.38(1)(a)(i) do not cover the present claim. The action is not statute barred and the respondent's motion will be dismissed with costs.
Shahbahram Ardeshirian
Robe River Iron Associates [1993] FCA 352;
Aldridge v. Booth [1988] FCA 170; (1988) 80 ALR 1
Hall v. A. and A. Sheiban Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 72; (1989) 20 FCR 217
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (NSW) v. Owens (No. 2) [1953] HCA 62; (1953) 88 CLR 168
Pedersen v. Young [1964] HCA 28; (1964) 110 CLR 162
Commonwealth v. Anderson [1960] HCA 85; (1960) 105 CLR 303
Suehle v. The Commonwealth [1967] HCA 13; (1967) 116 CLR 353
Scotland v. Bargen and Anor [1982] HCA 22; (1982) 41 ALR 65
(1993) 43 FCR 475
(1973) 129 CLR 65
(1988) 80 ALR 1
(1989) 20 FCR 217
(1953) 88 CLR 168
(1967) 116 CLR 353
(1993) 116 ALR 173
(1977) 15 SASR 378
(1964) 110 CLR 162
(1980) 47 FLR 44
(1986) 67 ALR 616
(1960) 105 CLR 303
(1967) 17 FLR 410
(1982) 41 ALR 65