❓ A WA parliamentary question on notice regarding the proposed Limitation Bill 2005, specifically its impact on personal injury claims and liability insurance costs. The parliamentary secretary provides a detailed explanation of the bill's provisions and refers to a second reading speech for further information.
AnsweredQoN 873Legislative Council
Asked
10 November 2005
Member
Portfolio
parliamentary secretary representing the Attorney
General
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Is it a correct interpretation of Labor’s proposed new liability laws that there is no longer a time limit for taking legal action over personal injury claims linked to the time at which an injury is sustained; and, if not, what is the correct interpretation? (2) In what way, if any, do Labor’s proposed liability laws curtail the capacity for personal injury claims to be made in comparison with current laws? (3) Will the Attorney General table any advice obtained by the government on the potential impact of the proposed laws on liability insurance costs; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(2) In what way, if any, do Labor’s proposed liability laws curtail the capacity for personal injury claims to be made in comparison with current laws? (3) Will the Attorney General table any advice obtained by the government on the potential impact of the proposed laws on liability insurance costs; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(3) Will the Attorney General table any advice obtained by the government on the potential impact of the proposed laws on liability insurance costs; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(2) In what way, if any, do Labor’s proposed liability laws curtail the capacity for personal injury claims to be made in comparison with current laws? (3) Will the Attorney General table any advice obtained by the government on the potential impact of the proposed laws on liability insurance costs; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
(3) Will the Attorney General table any advice obtained by the government on the potential impact of the proposed laws on liability insurance costs; and, if not, why not? The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The PRESIDENT : Noting the time, the parliamentary secretary may wish to exercise a certain discretion. Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I will indeed. I seek leave to have the answer incorporated in Hansard . Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Leave granted. The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
The following material was incorporated - I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
I thank the Hon. Member for some notice of this question. 1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
1 On ordinary principles, applied in the Limitation Act 1935 , the limitation period for a claim in tort for damages for personal injury runs from when the first not insignificant injury consequential upon that tort occurs. Thus a tortious cause of action currently accrues for limitation purposes even where the victim was not aware that injury or disease had been suffered. Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Clause 54 of the Limitation Bill 2005 removes the anomaly associated with time running from the occurrence per se of an injury or disease by providing that time will run, not from the occurrence of the injury, but from the earlier of the victim becoming aware of the injury and the first manifestation of that injury appearing. In the typical case of injury, occurrence of the injury and awareness or manifestation of that injury will be simultaneous. However, in cases (such as cancer) where the disease has commenced but is not yet apparent (either through say a tumour being revealed on x-ray or cancer symptoms appearing), the effect of clause 54 will be to delay the accrual date so that time does not run during a period when the disease was not or could not have been discovered. Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Clause 54 is complemented by clause 55, which deals specifically with asbestos disease claims. Clause 55 reflects the current limitation provisions relevant to asbestos related disease. 2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
2 The effect of the Limitation Bill 2005 will be generally to reduce the base limitation period for personal injury claims from six years to three years. However, the accrual date will be delayed by clause 54 in circumstances of undiscovered disease or injury and the Bill contains a detailed scheme for suspension and extension of limitation periods which provides a flexibility and fairness which is not available under the generally fixed limitation periods of the Limitation Act 1935 . In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
In the case of damages claims associated with childbirth which accrued prior to the commencement of the Limitation Bill 2005 , clause 7 of the Bill operates to modify the presently applicable limitation period by requiring the action to be brought by the earlier of the child turning 24 and, subject to any relevant modifications and extensions under Part 3 of the Bill, the date six years after the Bill’s coming into operation. Under the present regime a child has until age 24 to sue, except in the case of claims against public hospitals in which event there is a six year limitation period running from the date of injury. 3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
3 This issue is dealt with in my second reading speech for the Limitation Bill 2005 , in which I referred to the letter of 15 October 2004 from Dr Louise Farrell, Chairman of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.