Page 2314 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 17 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This Bill will allow actions to be brought in the Magistrates Court if that is the wish of the person bringing the action. Obviously, many actions will not necessarily be brought in the Magistrates Court merely because it is now possible. Many people commencing actions of what I might describe as an amorphous kind will bring them in a superior court and claim a much larger sum of money so that the jurisdiction is sufficiently large to make a large award possible, if that is the anticipated outcome, or at least the possible outcome from the point of view of the plaintiff. However, some people will be bringing relatively modest actions, or for other reasons will desire a court where the overall cost structure is lower. It is important to be able to bring them in a court where the costs are lower, and for that reason this is a desirable kind of development. Even if only a few actions of this kind are brought, I think it will be a valuable reform, and the Opposition therefore gives it our support.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (8.55), in reply: I thank the Opposition for their support for this legislation. This does make the law slightly more accessible. A process of simplifying and easing access to the law in Australia is not going to happen in one fell swoop; it will be a process of incremental change. This is one part of that change. Up until now, actions for nervous shock had to be brought in the Supreme Court, even though they may have fallen within the monetary limit of the Magistrates Court. Actions are cheaper and easier to bring in the Magistrates Court.
The reason, to the extent that we can find a reason, for the limitation of this type of action to the Supreme Court is probably that, when the original ordinance was introduced in the 1950s, nervous shock actions were still regarded as fairly unusual. While it is true that it was the snail in the bottle case that first established that type of action, and indeed established the general grounds for negligence, nervous shock actions were fairly rare and fairly unique. I suspect that in the 1950s there was a perception that such matters ought to be brought only before the better legally trained persons on the Supreme Court, given that then the Magistrates Court was a pretty small jurisdiction in the ACT. Now that the Magistrates Court has the highest monetary limit in Australia for general actions and in many ways operates as an intermediate court - in many ways it parallels a district court - it seems inappropriate to continue that bar.
I would, in closing, thank the Law Society of the ACT. This was a sensible suggestion that came from the Law Society. They approached the Government and said, "This would seem to be a way by which you could quickly make access to justice that little bit easier and allow some people to litigate in a slightly cheaper way". The Government looked at the Law Society's initiative, agreed that it did make sense, and brought it before the Assembly, where it seems to have support from all members, which is very pleasing.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.
Bill agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .