Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
Compliance & Qualification
Limitation periods are not a technicality. They are a hard boundary in Australian civil law — and crossing one without taking action extinguishes a right to claim permanently, regardless of how strong that claim might otherwise have been.
For a platform that exists to help people pursue professional negligence claims, managing limitation period risk is not optional. It is built into how we operate from the moment someone first contacts us.
This page sets out Fair Go Australia’s approach to identifying, assessing, and disclosing limitation period obligations — across all Australian states and territories — and explains what that means in practice for the people who come to us for help.
A limitation period is the window of time within which a legal claim must be commenced. Once it closes, the right to bring that claim is gone. Courts have almost no discretion to extend it. The strength of the underlying case becomes irrelevant.
In professional negligence matters, limitation periods are governed by state and territory legislation. There is no single national Limitation Act. The applicable rules depend on where the claimant is located and the nature of the claim.
| Jurisdiction | Legislation | General limitation period |
|---|---|---|
| NSW | Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) | 3 years from discoverability |
| VIC | Limitation of Actions Act 1958 (VIC) | 6 years general / 3 years personal injury |
| QLD | Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) | 3 years from discoverability |
| WA | Limitation Act 2005 (WA) | 6 years general / 3 years personal injury |
| SA | Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA) | 3 years from discoverability |
| TAS | Limitation Act 1974 (TAS) | 6 years general / 3 years personal injury |
| ACT | Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) | 3 years from discoverability |
| NT | Limitation Act 1981 (NT) | 3 years from discoverability |
Fair Go Australia operates across every Australian state and territory. Each matter is assessed against the legislation that actually applies to it — not a generic rule of thumb.
The first substantive question we ask at intake is not about the nature of the claim or the amount of the loss. It is about time.
Before anything else, we identify the following four things:
This is not a box-ticking exercise. If a matter is close to the limitation deadline, it is escalated within our assessment workflow. The claimant is advised clearly and in writing about the deadline and what it means. Where a matter cannot be fully assessed and actioned before the period expires, we say so — and we recommend the claimant seek independent urgent legal advice without delay.
We do not reassure people that things will be fine when there is a real time constraint in play. That would be a disservice to them.
This is the part of limitation period law that most people misunderstand, and it matters enormously.
The limitation period does not automatically begin on the date the negligence occurred. Under the discoverability principles embedded in Australian limitation legislation, the clock generally starts running from the date the claimant became aware — or ought reasonably to have become aware — of the essential facts that give rise to the claim.
What that means in practice is that someone who only recently connected a professional’s failure to their loss may still be well within their limitation period, even if the underlying negligence happened years ago. Equally, someone who suspected something was wrong years ago but did nothing may find that the clock has been running longer than they assumed.
Case reference
The High Court addressed the contours of the discoverability principle in Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539, and subsequent state courts have continued to refine how discoverability is assessed in different professional contexts.
When FGA assesses a matter at intake, we flag discoverability as a specific legal question — one that requires proper legal advice, not a self-assessment. We do not treat the claimant’s own view of when they “found out” as the definitive answer. We identify it as an issue that needs to be carefully considered, and we proceed accordingly.
Alongside standard limitation periods, most Australian jurisdictions operate what are known as longstop periods — an absolute outer limit on bringing a claim, regardless of when the negligence was discovered.
Longstop periods typically run from the date the act or omission occurred, commonly extending to 12 years depending on the jurisdiction and the nature of the claim. They apply even in cases where the claimant genuinely could not have discovered the loss any earlier. Once the longstop period has passed, the claim is barred.
Fair Go Australia identifies longstop risk as a separate step in its limitation period assessment. Where a longstop period is in play — particularly in cases involving historical professional advice, long-running projects, or latent defects — we identify that as a critical issue at the assessment stage and advise accordingly.
This is not a scenario that arises in every matter. But when it does, it needs to be identified early. It is not something that can be left to surface later in the process.
When our initial assessment identifies that a claimant’s matter is close to, or potentially beyond, its limitation period, our response follows a specific sequence.
Immediate escalationThe matter is flagged within our workflow and prioritised ahead of matters where no time constraint exists.
Clear written adviceThe claimant receives explicit written advice about the applicable limitation period, the date by which a claim would need to be commenced, and the consequences of missing that deadline.
Honest assessment of feasibilityIf we cannot complete a full assessment and connect the claimant with appropriate legal representation before the deadline, we say so plainly. We do not manage expectations downward gradually — we address it directly.
Independent legal advice recommendationWhere a matter is critically close to expiry, we recommend the claimant seek urgent independent legal advice from a qualified solicitor without waiting for our process to complete. The risk of missing the deadline is too significant to subordinate to any internal timeline.
FGA will not be the reason a claim was lost to time. That principle shapes how we handle limitation period risk at every stage.
This page describes Fair Go Australia’s internal compliance approach to limitation period identification and disclosure. It is not legal advice.
The assessment of a specific limitation period — including when the clock started running and whether any extension or exception may apply — requires consideration of the individual facts of the matter and the law of the applicable jurisdiction. That is a question for a qualified legal practitioner, not for a general description of policy.
Anyone who has a genuine concern about whether their matter is still within time should seek independent legal advice as a matter of urgency. The free case evaluation offered by Fair Go Australia is a useful starting point, but it is not a substitute for qualified advice on time-sensitive questions.
If you have any uncertainty about the status of your limitation period, the responsible course of action is to get advice — promptly, and from someone qualified to give it.
If you have concerns about whether your matter is still within time, our team is available to conduct an initial assessment. We can identify the applicable limitation period, flag any discoverability questions, and advise on next steps — without charge and without obligation. Contact us through the free case evaluation page or reach out directly at contact@fga.net.au.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter