Limitation of Actions Consultation - Law Commission

knowledge” of those facts (that is, when the plaintiff “ought to know” the relevant
facts) (paragraphs 12.45 to 12.51 and 12.52 to 12.58 respectively). We then
discuss whether knowledge of the law should be relevant (paragraphs 12.59 to
12.69). In the last section we examine corporate knowledge (paragraphs 12.70 to
12.87).
(b) Knowledge of which facts?
12.28 Recent proposals from law reform bodies in other common law jurisdictions have
tried to simplify the definition of knowledge as much as possible. At the same
time, it is felt to be essential to specify the information the plaintiff is expected to
have on the date of knowledge in some detail. Some of the alternative definitions
which have been proposed by law reform bodies in common law jurisdictions are:
(1) (a) A claimant who gains knowledge
(i) of the occurrence of the act or omission on which the claim
is based; or
(ii) of the identity of the person to whom the act or omission is
wholly or partly attributable, whether as principal, agent,
employee or otherwise; or
(iii) of the harm suffered by the claimant as a result of the act or
omission; or
(iv) that the harm is significant
after the date of the act or omission on which the claim is based,
may bring the claim within the time extension described in
subsection [b].
(b) The time extension is three years after the latest date the claimant
gains knowledge of any of the facts described in subsection (1).
(c) In subsection [b], the phrase ‘date the claimant gains knowledge’
means the date the claimant gains knowledge of the facts described
or any earlier date on which the claimant, in the claimant’s
circumstances and with the claimant’s abilities, should have known
of those facts. (Law Commission of New Zealand, section 6 of
Model Limitations Act). 42
(2) The date the claimant first knew, or in the circumstances ought to have
known,
(a) that the injury for which the claimant seeks a remedial order had
occurred,
(b) that the injury was attributable to the conduct of the defendant, and
42 Report No 6, Limitation Defences in Civil Proceedings, NZLC R6 (1988).
259