Edgarange Pty Ltd v Pretirement Villages Pty Ltd
[2012] QDC 365
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Edgarange Pty Ltd v Pretirement Villages Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 365
- Add to List
Edgarange Pty Ltd v Pretirement Villages Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 365
Edgarange Pty Ltd v Pretirement Villages Pty Ltd[2012] QDC 365
[2012] QDC 365
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
ROBIN QC
No 918 of 2011
EDGARANGE PTY LTD | Plaintiff |
and |
|
PRETIREMENT VILLAGES PTY LTD | Defendant |
and |
|
SSE CIVIL CONSULTANTS | First Third Party |
and |
|
SEAN JAMES STRINGER | Second Third Party |
BRISBANE
DATE 30/11/2012
ORDER | Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 203(2) Separate determination of issues between defendant and third parties recently added by leave ordered, subject to review - plaintiff ought not at this stage to lose the advantage of fixed trial dates |
The court has refused the defendant's application to vacate trial dates which some time ago were fixed, commencing the 4th of February next year. The reasons, published at [2012] QDC 326, show it was anticipated that there might be difficulties in achieving a full trial of the proceeding on those dates, given the embryonic third party proceedings the defendant had in mind.
The court was unimpressed with the defendant's slowness in getting third party proceedings underway that has happened. The Court set deadlines which have to be met if the defendant is to have the advantage of recourse against the third parties open. Needless to say, the defendant was in that position because it needed leave to bring the third party proceedings.
The corporate third party was served wihtin the short time allowed. The individual third party was not for which the defendant cannot fairly be blamed in the circumstances. Both third parties appear today represented by Mr Ashton. Today was the deadline for the company's pleading. Mr Stringer will have an extra week.
Matters aren't straightforward. Mr Ashton informs the court that his clients have in mind the possibility of bringing in a fourth party, also that he is dissatisfied with the pleading he has to respond to.
The main issue today has been the defendant's application on a preset mention date to vacate the trial dates, I'm not prepared to take that course. The published reasons record the impression I have, which has been confirmed today, that it is a very close call whether the third party issues ought to be tried together with those in the claim. My view is that the plaintiff ought not to be further delayed. Accordingly an order has been made which for the moment separates out the third party issues so that the trial can go ahead. It is necessary for the court to make that order under rule 203(2).
It may well be that some further order can be made to permit discrete identified issues involving the third parties to be determined at the trial if that can be shown to be conveniently possible, perhaps even on the basis of modest delay. This can be kept under review.
I have given the parties the best assurance I can that the same Judge will hear the trial and the third party proceedings when they're ready so that one can be pretty confident the apocryphal risk of litigants falling between stools is not a real risk at all here. I accept what Mr Ashton and Mr O'Higgins say about the sets of issues being largely separate.
It's worth placing on record another matter that may occupy the court's attention, namely an application by the third parties for security for costs; that will be by a separate application.
Those are the reasons for the court's ordering in terms of the draft which I initial, providing:
“THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:
- The trial to commence on 4 February 2013 but those issues between the Defendant and the First Third Party and the Second Third party (together “the Third Parties”) not be tried unless the Court otherwise orders.
- The Third Parties make any requests for particulars of the Defendant’s Third Party Amended Statement of Claim by 7 December 2012.
- The Third Parties to file and serve their Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence(s) by 24 January 2013 or 14 days after the provision of particulars whichever is later.
- The Defendant to file any reply to the Third Parties’ Notice of Intention to Defend and Defence(s) within 14 days of the operative deadline pursuant to the preceding paragraph.
- The Defendant and the Third Parties conduct mutual disclosure by 31 January 2013.
- Any expert reports upon which the parties intend to rely at the trial be filed and served by 31 January 2013.
- The matter to be listed for further review on 29 January 2013.
- The Plaintiff’s costs of today over and above such costs as would be incurred on the non-contentious mention be its costs in the cause. Otherwise costs are reserved.
- Liberty to apply.”