//
[2025] ACTSC 222
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: Skotnicki v Jamieson Citation: [2025] ACTSC 222 Hearing Date: 30 May 2025 Decision Date: 30 May 2025 Before: McCallum CJ Decision: See [4]. 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: Lois Anne Stoknicki (Plaintiff) Dr Stephen Jamieson (First Defendant) Dr Terry Gavaghan (Second Defendant) Representation: Counsel D Richards (Plaintiff) K Pattenden (First Defendant) L Quilty (Second Defendant) Solicitors United Legal (Plaintiff) Avant Law Pty Ltd (First Defendant) Mills Oakley (Second Defendant) File Number: SC 98 of 2025 McCALLUM CJ: Introduction
Before the Court is an application dated 6 May 2025 seeking leave to commence the proceedings nunc pro tunc. Leave is required pursuant to s 79 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) because the proceedings were commenced at a time when the parties had not completed the pre-trial requirements specified in Chapter 5 of the Civil Law (Wrongs) Act.
The proceedings were commenced at that time due to an apprehension on the part of Mr Montagnino, the solicitor for the plaintiff, that the limitation period was about to expire. In those circumstances the decision to commence the proceedings, notwithstanding the failure to comply with Chapter 5, was deliberate and was made to protect the plaintiff against the expiration of the limitation period. That is plainly a proper basis for commencing proceedings urgently.
Ideally in such circumstances, leave would be sought as a prayer for relief in the originating process, but it is established that that is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings commenced without leave, there being, as counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Richards, has previously argued in other applications in this Court, no indication in the statute of an intention on the part of Parliament to foreclose the prosecution of a claim in the case of a proceeding commenced without leave. The defendants both consent to the leave sought and accordingly it is appropriate to make the order.
Orders
Skotnicki
Jamieson [2025] ACTSC 222