Brisbane City Council v Amos [2019] HCA 27 (04 September 2019) (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ) - 13wentworthselbornechambers
16980
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-16980,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode-child-theme-ver-1.0.0,qode-theme-ver-16.8,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.5.2,vc_responsive
 

Brisbane City Council v Amos [2019] HCA 27 (04 September 2019) (Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Nettle and Edelman JJ)


Catchwords:


Limitation of actions – Debts created by statute – Debts secured by charge – Where Council commenced proceeding against respondent for overdue rates and charges – Where overdue rates and charges secured by charge – Where respondent argued claim was an action to recover a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment under s 10(1)(d) of Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) – Where Council argued claim was an action to recover a principal sum of money secured by a charge and subject to s 26(1) of the Act – Where proceeding falls within both ss 10(1)(d) and 26(1) – Whether s 26(1) applies to exclude operation of s 10(1)(d).

Words and phrases – “Barnes v Glenton”, “claim in rem”, “limitation of actions”, “overlap between limitation periods”, “personal claim”, “real claim”, “sums secured by mortgage or charge”, “what claims are within limitation statutes”.