The royal commission recommended abolishing time limits on abuse cases – a year on, nothing has changed

Among the 138 recommendations^[1] of the Abuse in Care Royal Commission of Inquiry’s final report to parliament was a clear call: remove the legal time limits that prevent survivors of historic abuse from seeking justice in civil court.

That report – Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light^[2] – was published on July 24 last year. One year on, the government has yet to act^[3].

Without that reform, survivors of historic abuse remain vulnerable to being turned away by the legal system – not because their experiences aren’t credible, but because the law still treats them as being out of time.

The royal commission heard from thousands of survivors of childhood abuse in the care of state and faith-based institutions between 1950 and 1999. What stood out was how often that harm was made worse by silence, disbelief and legal systems that failed to respond.

Limitation periods in abuse cases

Under New Zealand law, people generally have six years from the time a harm occurs to bring a civil claim. That limit is set out in the Limitation Act 2010^[4] for events after 2011, and in the Limitation Act 1950^[5] for events before that.

For survivors of historic abuse, particularly childhood abuse, that six-year window rarely reflects how trauma actually works. Survivors often take decades to feel sufficiently safe and supported to come forward and name what happened to them.

The 1950 law allowed limitation periods to be paused if a claimant was under a “disability^[6]” – a legal term meaning they were either a child or, in the language of the time, of “unsound mind”. In practice, this meant the six-year clock usually didn’t start for children until they reached adulthood.

The 2010 law clarified this by explicitly saying the limitation period for children begins at 18. It also introduced a new “incapacitated” exception, allowing the clock to pause for adults who are unable to make decisions or take legal action because of trauma or other conditions.

But in practice it’s a narrow doorway. Courts require survivors to prove not just trauma, but a high legal incapacity threshold.

This means that even when the abuse is acknowledged, and even when survivors have strong evidence, civil cases are often barred. The bar is not that the harm didn’t happen, but that it happened “too long ago”.

How civil time limits deny justice

In 2019, former Air Force servicewoman Mariya Taylor brought a civil claim against the sergeant who had sexually abused her in the 1980s while both were stationed at the Whenuapai base.

The court accepted the abuse had occurred. But because Taylor was not legally considered “disabled” by trauma, and the six-year window had closed, her case was struck out^[7] under the Limitation Act 1950. Adding insult to injury, she was ordered to pay costs to her abuser^[8].

At 18, Taylor had entered a rigid military hierarchy where power and discipline made reporting abuse nearly impossible.

Her case shows how limitation periods can block even well-evidenced claims, and how institutional dynamics such as silence, shame and obedience often delay disclosure^[9].

These same patterns were pivotal to the royal commission’s findings.

Australia is ahead of NZ

Australia has taken a markedly different approach. In line with the final report^[10] of its own Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse^[11] in 2017, every state and territory removed civil limitation periods for survivors of childhood abuse.

Survivors can now bring civil claims regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. In landmark case in 2023, GLJ v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore^[12], the High Court of Australia rejected a request to shut down proceedings even though the alleged abuser and other witnesses had died. The court said the case could still go ahead using available evidence.

The GLJ decision is important for New Zealand courts^[13]. It shows that while removing time bars doesn’t guarantee victory for survivors, it does give them the chance to be heard.

Delayed but not denied

Removing time limits for civil claims involving historic abuse, as the royal commission recommended, is now overdue.

A first step would be for the government to clearly commit to amending the Limitation Act 2010 to exclude claims of historic abuse – especially child sexual abuse – from the six-year deadline.

This would bring New Zealand into line with Australia and recognise what we now know about the delayed nature of disclosure, trauma and institutional silence. It would also honour the spirit of the royal commission’s work.

As courts and commissions have recognised, removing limitation periods doesn’t guarantee a win for survivors. But it does mean they’re at least allowed to try.

For years, survivors have been told they’ve spoken too late. Reforming limitation laws won’t undo the harm they suffered. But it will show their testimony matters, and that justice delayed does not have to mean justice denied.

References

1. ^{^} 138 recommendations (www.abuseincare.org.nz)
2. ^{^} Whanaketia – Through pain and trauma, from darkness to light (www.abuseincare.org.nz)
3. ^{^} yet to act (www.abuseincare.org.nz)
4. ^{^} Limitation Act 2010 (www.legislation.govt.nz)
5. ^{^} Limitation Act 1950 (www.legislation.govt.nz)
6. ^{^} disability (www.legislation.govt.nz)
7. ^{^} struck out (www.courtsofnz.govt.nz)
8. ^{^} ordered to pay costs to her abuser (img.scoop.co.nz)
9. ^{^} often delay disclosure (newsroom.co.nz)
10. ^{^} final report (www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au)
11. ^{^} Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au)
12. ^{^} GLJ v. The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore (www.hcourt.gov.au)
13. ^{^} important for New Zealand courts (www.shinelawyers.co.nz)