Abstract
Limitation periods for the institution of actions for personal injury prescribe important impediments for the institution of actions by victims of both intentional and non-intentional torts. In Stingel v Clark (2006) 80 ALJR 1339; [2006] HCA 37 the majority of the High Court of Australia interpreted Victoria's statute of limitation provisions in such a way as to extend latitude to victims of intentional torts and those suffering late onset psychiatric injuries. The author argues that the repercussions of the decision are likely to be significant for sexual assault victims and also for the ongoing Melbourne-Voyager cases.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
