By -

Snapshot

  • A recent decision of the Federal Court in a class action regarding the Montara oil spill provides an update on the considerations that apply to the exercise of a discretion to extend time in the law of limitations.
  • It is the applicant’s state of knowledge, not that of their lawyers or agents, which is relevant to an assessment of whether and when material facts were ascertained to establish an extension of time under Limitation Acts.

A recent decision of the Federal Court in a class action regarding the Montara oil spill in the Timor Sea in 2009 provides an update on the considerations that apply to the exercise of a discretion to extend time in the law of limitations – particularly in the context of class actions arising in South Australia and the Northern Territory
(Sanda v PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 1272).

The case is authority for the proposition that knowledge of relevant matters by the applicant’s representatives or agents will not disentitle the applicant, unaware of such facts, from obtaining an extension. This is particularly pertinent to class actions which may involve lawyers ‘working up’ a case for a lengthy period, even years, before the applicant and group members are aware of many of the material facts.

You've reached the end of this article preview

There's more to read! Subscribe to LSJ today to access the rest of our updates, articles and multimedia content.

Subscribe to LSJ

Already an LSJ subscriber or Law Society member? Sign in to read the rest of the article.

Sign in to read more