DAMAGES CLAIMS

Auckland Star, Volume LXXV, Issue 217, 13 September 1944, Page 4

DAMAGES CLAIMS

ON LOCAL BODIES

TIME LIMIT QUESTION

(By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter)

WELLINGTON, this day.

The desirability of amending existing legislation which prohibits the recovery of damages from harbour boards and other local bodies unless action is taken within six months after the alleged injury was urged in the House of Representatives yesterday. It was explained that in the case of actions against individuals the period of limitation was six years.

The House had before it a report of the A to L Public Petitions Committee on an Auckland petition. The petitioner, A. •W. Baker, asked the House to pass legislation: (a) To enable him to bring a suit in the Supreme Court against the Auckland Harbour Board for . damage suffered; (b) to abolish all time limits less than six years (the period set out in the statute of limitations) for bringing actions against local bodies, so that others might not be under the same disability as he was in respect to instituting actions; or (c) abolish all such time limits in all accident cases; or (d) make all such time limits the same as in the Crown Suits Act, 1908, namely, 12 months; and, or (e) in all cases where there was a time limit, give the Court hearing the action power to disregard such time limit if the plaintiff was ignorant of the dime limit or the cause of justice demanded such a course.

Committee's Recommendation

The committee stated it" had no recommendation to make in respect to the petitioner's request to permit him to take action against the Auckland Harbour Board or in respect to his suggestion that Courts should be able to disregard any time limit. The committee, however, recommended for the most favourable consideration of the Government the other suggestions made by petitioner.

Mr. W. T. Anderton (Govt., Eden) said that the petitioner did not know that if he had any claim against the Auckland' Harbour Board it had to be made within six months. As a result of his injuries the petitioner would probably have to take a job in the future at wages at least £2 a week less than he had been receiving as a driver at the time of his accident. Mr. Anderton contended that compensation in such cases should be based on what a person lost owing to an accident and what the continuing loss should be. In Baker's case, however, a clause had been introduced in a Finance Bill last year permitting the petitioner to take his case to the Supreme Court, but he had been unsuccessful. He understood that the Harbour Board was prepared to assist by relieving the petitioner of debt, but Mr. Anderton said he did not think that that met the situation, and he considered that it was necessary to overhaul the compensation law. Mr. R. M. Algie (Nat., Remuera) said the petitioner had suffered an acpident, and had exhausted his legal remedy. He had received ordinary compensation benefits. Had he been able to prove negligence he would have had a claim for considerable damages. Uniform Limitation Urged If a citizen complained of having suffered a legal wrong, continued Mr. Algie, he was entitled to commence his action any time within six years. I£, however, a citizen complained that he had suffered a wrong at the hands of the Crown he had a shorter period under the Crown Suits Act in which to commence an action, namely 12 months. Yet again, when a citizen complained that he had suffered a wrong at the hands of a local body the period of .limitation was usually six months, but in some cases only three months were allowed. It was said that if the lesser limitations were not imposed where local bodies were concerned, it became most difficult to collect evidence either for plaintiff or defendant, but if that were so, why should a longer period be allowed when a local body or the Crown was not urged a rationalisation of the periods of limitation so that the limitation allowed would be uniform.

Mr. A. Sutherland (Nat., Hauraki), a former chairman of the Auckland Harbour Board, said that the petitioner Avas not an employee of the board. He was working for a cartage contractor, and was injured on the wharf. The board had given him every facility to make his claim.

Mr. A. S. Richards (Govt.. Roskill), chairman of the committee, said there was no evidence before the committee indicating that petitioner was annoyed or dissatisfied with the action of the Harbour Board. The committee had taken the closest interest in the case because the petitioner wished to make sure that others should not be statute bound when desiring to institute legal proceedings. The law in the United Kingdom had been amended in 1939 giving an injured person a longer period than previously to make a claim.

The report was adopted.