Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd v Pittaway
[2014] QDC 295
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
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd v Pittaway[2014] QDC 295
- Add to List
Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd v Pittaway[2014] QDC 295
Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd v Pittaway[2014] QDC 295
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd & others v Pittaway [2014] QDC 295 |
PARTIES: | Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd (first applicant) and Noosa Cat Company Pty Ltd (second applicant) and Wayne Leslie Hennig (third applicant) v Donald Pittaway (respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | BD3516/12 |
DIVISION: | Civil |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 19 December 2014 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 20 November 2014 |
JUDGE: | Kingham DCJ |
ORDER: |
|
CATCHWORDS: | CIVIL – APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – where defendants argued claim should be struck out either under UCPR r 280 or as an abuse of process – where plaintiff failed to comply with the rules and Court order – where plaintiff attributed blame to former solicitor – where found that plaintiff delayed in commencing proceedings – where failure to comply with court order not explained – where plaintiff’s prospects of success are not strong – where some prejudice to the defendants – where the Court used its discretion to dismiss the claim CIVIL – APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – RECONSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS – where, if successful on strike out application, the defendants ask that their counterclaim be reconstituted as a claim against the plaintiff – where the Court ordered reconstitution CIVIL – APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT – COSTS – where defendants argued that indemnity costs be awarded due to state of plaintiff’s pleadings and failure to correct deficits in them – where defendants argued plaintiff had no real prospects of success – where the Court not asked to make a finding as to the defendants’ allegation of misconduct by the plaintiff – where ordered that costs are to follow the event – where application for indemnity costs refused |
COUNSEL: | Mr J Lee for the applicant defendant Mr B McGlade for the respondent plaintiff |
SOLICITORS: | Wellners Lawyers for the applicant defendant Catton Roderick for the respondent plaintiff |
1.Background
- [1]Noosa Cat Australia Pty Ltd and Noosa Cat Company Pty Ltd (the first and second defendants) own and operate a boat construction business from land owned by one of the companies in Noosa. Wayne Hennig, the third defendant, is a director of the companies.
- [2]Noosa Cat’s first contact with Mr Pittaway, a builder, was when was subcontracted by M&S, a company Noosa Cat had engaged to construct a shed. In time, Noosa Cat dealt with Mr Pittaway directly for the construction of further sheds.
- [3]These proceedings involve claims by Mr Pittaway and counterclaims by Noosa Cat arising out of their dealings over a number of years from the mid 1990s until around 2004.
- [4]Mr Pittaway sues for damages for breach of two agreements he says he reached with Noosa Cat: one for him to construct a shed and the other for Noosa Cat to construct a boat for him. He alleges the cost of the boat was to be offset against the costs of shed construction and amounts said to be outstanding from Noosa Cat for services already supplied. In the alternative to damages, he seeks reasonable remuneration for his services. His claims exceed $400,000.
- [5]Noosa Cats vigorously contests the claims, contesting the status of the alleged agreements. It denies owing Mr Pittaway anything for services rendered. It also counterclaims damages (in the order of $266,000) arising from what it alleges is faulty construction of one shed by Mr Pittaway. As well as damages, it seeks restitution of the value of materials it alleges Mr Pittaway fraudulently converted to his own use (some $30,000).
- [6]These proceedings were started in the Supreme Court in 2010 and then transferred to the District Court. By then an unsuccessful mediation had taken place. Since it was transferred to this court it has made little progress, through no fault of Noosa Cat’s. In July 2014, consent orders were made by Judge Andrews SC to bring the matter to trial this year. Mr Pittaway has not complied with those orders and has not satisfactorily explained why not.
- [7]On 17 September 2014 Noosa Cat and Mr Hennig filed an application for various orders returnable on 2 October 2014. Mr Pittaway did not appear on the 2nd and I gave Noosa Cat leave to amend its application so as to include an application to strike out the plaintiff’s proceeding pursuant to r 280 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 and for judgment on the counterclaim with damages to be assessed. I listed it for hearing on 16 October 2014. Mr Pittaway did appear on the 16th and asked for a friend to speak for him. By then he had terminated his former solicitor’s retainer and was unrepresented.
- [8]I granted leave for his friend, Ron Biggs, to speak for him, without being aware that Mr Biggs will likely be a witness if this matter goes to trial, having done some of the engineering drawings and potentially having some knowledge of the arrangements between the parties. I do not criticise Mr Biggs for not bringing this to my attention. However, Mr Pittaway is no stranger to litigation and should have understood it was relevant for the court to know this.
- [9]On the 16th, Mr Pittaway asserted he had memory problems and appeared to have difficulty understanding what was going on. My concern about that led me to adjourn the hearing so Mr Pittaway’s capacity to represent himself, as a litigant in person, could be explored. Subsequently, his general practitioner advised the court his memory issues were related to anxiety, not any cognitive deficit, and there were no further investigations he would recommend. Around that time, on 23 October, Mr Pittaway secured new representation. At their request, I again adjourned the hearing from 31 October to 20 November. The hearing proceeded on that date and the last of the parties’ written submissions was received on 26 November 2014.
- [10]I have included that rather lengthy recitation of the procedural history of this application for two reasons. Firstly, to note the steps the court took, with appropriate and professional concessions by Noosa Cat, to ensure that Mr Pittaway was given proper opportunity to respond to an application which, if successful, would dismiss his claim without trial. Secondly, to record that his new solicitors had a reasonable time to take instructions and prepare for the hearing.
- [11]There was some change of position by Noosa Cat at the hearing on 20 November. It maintained its application to dismiss Mr Pittaway’s claim, but abandoned its request for judgement on the counterclaim, with damages to be assessed. Instead, it asked for orders to reconstitute the proceedings with the counterclaim proceeding as a claim and with directions made for its timely disposition.
2.The application to dismiss Mr Pittaway’s claim
- [12]The Court may dismiss a proceeding if the plaintiff fails to take a necessary step or comply with an order of the court within the time required. I am satisfied the court’s discretion under r 280 was enlivened by the following, and that did not seem to be contested by Mr Pittaway:
- (a)Mr Pittaway failed to comply with his obligation to give disclosure pursuant to rr 211 and 214 within the time allowed by r 214.
- (b)Mr Pittaway failed to comply with his obligations under r 445(1) by not responding to the letter from the defendant’s solicitors of 9 September 2014.
- (c)Mr Pittaway has failed to comply with the orders of Judge Andrews SC made on 30 May 2014, in that he failed to:
- (i)give disclosure by 11 August 2014;
- (ii)deliver expert reports by 26 August 2014;
- (iii)cause his expert witnesses to confer with the defendant’s expert witnesses by 8 September 2014; and
- (iv)file and serve his affidavits containing his evidence in chief by 8 September 2014.
- [13]The Court also has the power to dismiss proceedings as an abuse of process; a power implicit in s 69(1) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967.[1] In addition to those matters set out above, Noosa Cat argues Mr Pittaway’s history of failures to comply with pleading and other procedural requirements, even when repeatedly prompted by requests from Noosa Cat’s solicitor[2], is an abuse of the court’s process.
- [14]Whether under r 280 or s 69(1), similar considerations apply. In exercising its discretion, the court must have regard to relevant factors. They were helpfully summarised by Atkinson J, with whom McMurdo P and McPherson JA agreed, in Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd.[3] Each case must be assessed on its own circumstances and some factors will assume more significance in one than another. Having had regard to the parties’ arguments, discussed under the principles articulated in Tyler, I have decided to exercise the court’s discretion to dismiss Mr Pittaway’s claim.
(a) When the events occurred and delayed prior to commencing the litigation.
- [15]Mr Pittaway’s claim relates to two contracts which he says were formed in October 2003. However, in relation to the boat agreement, it picks up events said to have occurred between 1994 and 1996. Mr Pittaway pleads the shed agreement was completed in September 2004 and the boat agreement has never been fulfilled. However, proceedings were not commenced until June of 2010, a delay of about six years from completion of the shed agreement. That delay is relevant given many of the particulars set out in schedule 4 to the amended statement of claim relate to things said and done as early as 1994.
- [16]Given the lengthy delay before proceedings were commenced, Mr Pittaway’s delay in prosecuting the claim once filed counts in favour of dismissing his claim.
- (b)How long ago the litigation was commenced or causes of action were added.
- [17]Proceedings were commenced in June 2010 and later transferred to the District Court after unsuccessful mediation. On 7 December 2011, solicitors for the defendants wrote to the then solicitors for Mr Pittaway raising issues with the then statement of claim identifying amendments required to eight paragraphs of the pleading so that his case was made clear. The letter also requested disclosure of documentation referred to in four paragraphs of the statement of claim. An amended statement of claim was filed in September of 2012. Most of the complaints raised by the defendant’s solicitors have still not been attended to by Mr Pittaway.
- (c)what prospects the plaintiff has of success in the action
- [18]Much of the argument during the hearing related to Mr Pittaway’s pleadings. These arguments are relevant to assessing Mr Pittaway’s prospects of success, but not determinative, given the nature of those arguments.
- [19]Firstly, Noosa Cat argued that, because of the way in which Mr Pittaway had pleaded his reply to the defence, he had made deemed admissions to material aspects of the defence. Unless given leave to withdraw the admissions, he would not be able to lead evidence to the contrary.[4]
- [20]The state of the pleadings is not critical to Mr Pittaway’s prospects, as there is a remedy available. Counsel for Mr Pittaway made the same argument about the defence and counterclaim. In my view, it is neither necessary, nor appropriate, to resolve the contest about deemed admissions on this application. It is clear enough that each did not intend to admit those matters and would want to amend their pleadings were I to rule that was the effect of the way they had pleaded.
- [21]Had I decided to refuse the application to dismiss Mr Pittaway’s claim, it would have been necessary to ensure the scope of the dispute and the evidence that could be permitted at trial was properly defined by the pleadings. On this application, my concern must be with the underlying merits of the claim.
- [22]The other complaint made about Mr Pittaway’s pleadings is its style. The statement of claim proceeds on numerous causes of action and incorporates by reference information set out in a narrative form in schedules to the pleading. This is not a mere matter of form.[5] This approach to pleading obscures the material facts for each cause of action. In this case, to make sense of the pleading, the reader must interrogate a recitation of the history of dealings alleged between the parties in order to identify what information is relevant to a particular cause of action. This has also created difficulties for me in assessing Mr Pittaway’s prospects.
- [23]What is clear, though, is that Mr Pittaway’s prospects rest on findings the court will have to make about arrangements reached, largely orally, over a lengthy period. The competing evidence about these matters from Mr Pittaway and Mr Hennig, therefore, will be critical to the outcome.
- [24]Mr Hennig has prepared a detailed affidavit in which he has sworn to matters relevant both to the claim pleaded against him and the companies and to his counter claim against Mr Pittaway. On the other hand, Mr Pittaway has done nothing more than affirm that the matters set out in his amended statement of claim are true and correct. On this application, he has not sought to meet the assertions made by Mr Hennig about what they agreed at various times.
- [25]Mr Hennig has also gone to the trouble of fully articulating and, where possible, documenting his assertions about invoices, payments, materials purchased, the quality of Mr Pittaway’s work etc. In contrast, Mr Pittaway has placed very little before the court and what he has done, does not always demonstrate what he swears it does. For example, annexure DP-1 to his affidavit sworn on 20 November 2014 records cheques drawn by Noosa Cat deposited to his account, although he describes the document in his affidavit (at [6]) as evidence of payments by him to Noosa Cat.
- [26]The court file does contain a report provided by a quantity surveyor, by court order, in which the author assessed the value of services rendered by Mr Pittaway. Although it is titled a joint report, it is not accepted by Noosa Cat and the consent orders provided for each party to file their own expert material. It seems that, while Mr Hennig was present for the inspection, the report writer was briefed by Mr Pittaway. It includes amounts for works that Mr Hennig says nothing is owing as he paid all invoices rendered. The underlying assumptions upon which the conclusions are based would have to be proved.
- [27]Assuming, however, that the report is accepted at trial, it finds the value of Mr Pittaway’s services well exceeds the sum Mr Pittaway has claimed by way of quantum merit, in alternative to his damages claim.
- [28]However, if Mr Pittaway was not a licensed contractor at the time, his ability to recover damages for breach of contract or a claim in quantum meruit, is severely constrained. Section 42 of the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Act 1991 prevents an unlicensed contractor from recovering anything for the supply of his own labour, for a profit margin or for any direct or indirect benefit to him.
- [29]The defendants questioned whether Mr Pittaway was a licensed builder at the time. Mr Pittaway has exhibited a copy of his current builder’s licence and says he held the licence at the relevant times. Given his claims relate to works back to 1994 or 1995, his status at the relevant time would need to be proved, before Mr Pittaway could recover anything for his own labour. Again, that evidence is not before the court.
- [30]However, I accept that Mr Pittaway has an arguable case if he gives evidence to support the recitations in the schedules to the pleadings; if he demonstrates he was a licensed builder at the relevant times and if he pleads his case with sufficient particularity.
- [31]Although the focus of this application is Mr Pittaway’s failure to prosecute his claim, he ought to be prepared to meet the evidence and argument relevant to his prospects of success. I do not consider his change of solicitors prevented him from doing so. A detailed response to Mr Hennig’s affidavit, at the very least, could be expected on such an application. As it largely went to their discussions, he was not hampered by his lack of access to his file. On the material presently before the court, Mr Pittaway’s prospects of making out his claim could not be considered strong, a factor which favours dismissing his claim.
- (d)Whether or not there has been disobedience of Court orders or directions.
- [32]This has been conceded and the acts of non-compliance are set out above. In 2012 the proceedings were transferred to the District Court.
- (e)delay – has there been delay; is it due to impecuniosity caused by the other party; whose is responsible for the delay; is there a satisfactory explanation for it?
- [33]I have combined a number of discrete factors into one heading because, in this case, they overlap. An overview of the key steps in the chronology of this litigation is set out in Appendix A to these reasons. It is clear that there have been periods of delay. Overall these proceedings have taken an inordinately long time to reach this stage. However, the focus of Noosa Cat’s complaint is the delay since the consent orders were made in May 2014. Mr Pittaway argued that delay is not so long as to justify his case being dismissed.
- [34]The consent orders were made by Judge Andrews SC on 30 May 2014 when directions were made to prepare the matter for trial after 15 October 2014. Although it was Mr Pittaway who listed the matter for directions, he has not complied with any of the requirements he assumed by consenting to those orders Presumably the orders reflected his agreement (albeit with the advice of his solicitor) that the defined steps are necessary to bring the matter to trial and the timetable included in the orders was appropriate and achievable. Other than to say that his solicitor attended to the litigation, Mr Pittaway has failed to explain his failure to comply with the consent orders.
- [35]Since Judge Andrews SC made those orders, it seems there was a break down in communications or the relationship between Mr Pittaway and his solicitor. Very recently, Mr Pittaway terminated that lawyer’s instructions and directed him to provide the file to another lawyer who later indicated she was unwilling to take the matter on. Mr Pittaway was unrepresented for a short time but has now secured the services of another firm. His former solicitor has exercised a lien over the file claiming legal costs in the order of $167,000 remained unpaid. In the interim, Mr Pittaway’s new lawyers have constructed a file from documents on the public record.
- [36]Mr Pittaway seeks to place responsibility for delays since May of 2014 at the feet of his former lawyer and claims to have had no involvement in the management of the claim. During the hearing I expressed my concern about the serious allegations of, at best, incompetence and, at worst, breach of professional ethics against his former lawyer. They are wider ranging and non-specific and it does not appear his former lawyer knew such allegations were being made on the public record. He certainly has not been asked to respond to them and there is no evidence Mr Pittaway, or even his current solicitors, have ever raised these matters with the former solicitor.
- [37]It is simply not adequate to come to Court and say the delay cannot be explained because everything was left to the solicitor and that it was all the solicitor’s fault. The solicitor is the advisor and agent of Mr Pittaway. It is within his power to direct a solicitor who is not properly attending to his claim. It seems that Mr Pittaway was not only complicit in but content with an arrangement where everything was left to the solicitor. That was a choice he apparently made, but it cannot provide an explanation for his failure to comply with the requirements of the rules of court orders.
- [38]There is no material delay by Noosa Cat since the orders in May 2014. Even if the proceedings have moved in fits and starts in the past, Noosa Cat has taken steps to get the pleadings by both parties in good order and to ensure proper disclosure. It has participated in the mediation and done what it can to progress the steps required by the consent orders.
- [39]There is no evidence that Mr Pittaway’s financial circumstances have any bearing on his failure to comply.
- [40]Mr Pittaway’s unexplained failure to comply with the consent orders from May 2014 cannot be attributed to either Noosa Cat or his solicitor and favour his claim being dismissed.
- (f)Whether the litigation between the parties would be concluded by the striking out of the plaintiff’s claim.
- [41]This is a factor which weighs against dismissing the claim. It will not bring the litigation to a conclusion, because the defendants will pursue their counterclaim. However, the counterclaim is confined to damages for faulty building work and for restitution of misappropriated amounts. Mr Hennig’s affidavit demonstrates that the scope of that counterclaim is much more confined than Mr Pittaway’s claim. Dismissing Mr Pittaway’s claim will substantially reduce the scope of the dispute and progress its finalisation.
- (g)How far the litigation has progressed.
- [42]There are real issues with the pleadings in their current form. Were I to refuse this application, I would require Mr Pittaway to replead his case so the case the defendants have to meet is clarified. Further argument may also be required given the competing positions on the question of deemed admissions.
- [43]Further, none of the consent orders has been complied with. Affidavit material, expert reports and a conference of experts are all matters yet to be attended to. Those things might be attended to reasonably quickly once the pleadings are settled. However, Mr Pittaway is not in possession of his file over which his former solicitor has exercised a lien for unpaid fees. Mr Pittaway did not provide any estimate of when he might be in a position to give proper instructions to his new solicitors so that the litigation can be progressed.
- (h)Whether or not the delay has resulted in prejudice to the defendant leading to an inability to ensure a fair trial.
- [44]Noosa Cat did not argue it could not secure a fair trial. Mr Hennig’s affidavit demonstrates his current recall of the significant events and he has gathered together the record as best he can.
- [45]I accept, however, that the defendants have suffered prejudice given the history of the proceedings. Counsel for Noosa Cat invited me to infer that the defendants had incurred equivalent costs to those claimed from Mr Pittaway by his former solicitor. I decline to do so, but do not consider it necessary, in any event. Given the number of applications already heard in the Supreme and District Court, as well as the failed mediation, it is reasonable to assume the defendants have incurred significant legal costs in response to a claim still not properly pleaded against them.
- [46]Overall, Noosa Cat argued Mr Pittaway’s claim should be dismissed because of:
- (a)His serial failure to comply with the rules;
- (b)His serial failure to comply with orders of the court;
- (c)His failure to comply with the implied undertaking to proceed expeditiously as set out in r 5;
- (d)His failure to take reasonable and timely steps to prosecute the proceeding; and
- (e)His failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for any of those failures.
- [47]Mr Pittaway says the proceeding should not be dismissed because:
- (a)The plaintiff’s case is strong one;
- (b)There is no prejudice to the defendants if the claim continues;
- (c)The only material delay has occurred since July 2014;
- (d)Those breaches since July 2014 could not be described as persistent or contumelious;
- (e)The matter is almost ready for trial;
- (f)The proceedings have not gone stale;
- (g)Dismissing the plaintiff’s claim will not finalise the proceedings as the counter claim will remain on foot; and
- (h)Mr Pittaway has proposed steps for the timely resolution of his claim.
- [48]Most of the relevant factors weigh in favour of dismissing Mr Pittaway’s claim. I do not accept his claim is a strong one or that Noosa Cat has suffered no prejudice. The claim is not almost ready for trial. Mr Pittaway has failed to prosecute his case so as to facilitate the expeditious cost-effective determination of the dispute. He has not explained his non-compliance with court orders and sought to attribute blame to his former solicitor without providing any evidence to support serious allegations about that person’s professionalism. The material filed on this application gives me no confidence that, if the claim is not dismissed, it will proceed swiftly to determination.
- [49]Mr Pittaway’s claim will be dismissed.
3.Orders in relation to the counterclaim
- [50]Noosa Cat has asked that the proceedings be reconstituted with the counterclaim proceeding as the claim and directions made for its timely determination. The counterclaim can continue, despite the claim being dismissed.[6]I order that the counterclaim proceed by way of claim, with the parties roles in the proceedings adjusted accordingly. I will make directions after hearing from the parties.
4.Costs
- [51]Noosa Cats has asked for indemnity costs of the claim, including the application. There is no reason why costs should not follow the event.[7]
- [52]
- [53]Noosa Cat relies on the state of Mr Pittaway’s pleadings and his failure to respond to repeated invitations to correct pleading deficits. It argues Mr Pittaway’s claim had no real prospect of succeeding as pleaded, or otherwise. That has not been established. Absent some legal impediment to a party’s case, their prospects should not be assessed on the pleadings alone. Deemed admissions in Mr Pittaway’s pleadings do not provide a firm foundation for assessing the merit of his case, given the obvious factual contest about dealings over many years.
- [54]Although I have severe reservations about Mr Pittaway’s affidavit, he has verified the narrative contained in the schedules to the Statement of Claim. To resolve the dispute between Mr Hennig and Mr Pittaway about the terms and effect of any agreements between them, the court would have to resolve conflicting oral evidence.
- [55]Noosa Cat submitted Mr Pittaway’s claim was based on a fictional written agreement, with disclosure invented to support the fiction. I was not asked to and have not made that finding. Mr Hennig referred to a one page document entitled “Commercial Building Contract” being provided to him at some point in their dealings, although he denied that it encapsulated their agreement at the time.[10] Given that, I could not proceed as if Noosa Cat’s submission was proven, without hearing from both Mr Hennig and Mr Pittaway about this serious allegation of misconduct.
- [56]The particular facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant making an order for indemnity costs.
- [57]Mr Pittaway must pay the defendant’s costs of the claim and this application.
APPENDIX A
Date | Event |
15 June 2010 | Plaintiff files claim in the Supreme Court |
22 June 2010 | 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants file notice of intention to defend |
10 August 2010 | Plaintiff files reply |
7 December 2011 | Defendants write to plaintiff regarding pleadings and procedural matters |
27 May 2011 | Atkinson J makes directions (by consent) regarding the conduct of proceedings. Request for trial date is to be filed on or before 30 September 2011. |
29 September 2011 | Atkinson J makes orders (by consent):
|
16 November 2011 | Joint expert report filed |
28 November 2011 | Mediation took place |
7 December 2011 | Defendants write to plaintiff regarding pleadings and procedural matters |
30 March 2012 | Atkinson J orders (by consent) mediation to take place before 22 June 2012 |
13 July 2012 | Atkinson J orders (by consent):
|
31 August 2012 | Atkinson J directs the parties to file and serve amended pleadings:
|
28 September 2012 | Amended statement of claim filed in the District Court. |
25 January 2013 | Amended defence of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants filed. |
21 May 2014 | Plaintiff application for directions creating a timetable for filing of pleadings, appointment of joint expert, and request for trial date. |
30 May 2014 | Andrews SC DCJ directs the parties to file and serve, among other things, the following pleadings:
The matter is listed for review at a date to be fixed after 15 October 2014 and placed on the Commercial List. |
16 July 2014 | Further amended defence of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd defendants filed |
3 September 2014 | Defendants write to plaintiff regarding pleadings and procedural matters |
9 September 2014 | Defendants write to plaintiff regarding pleadings and procedural matters |
15 September 2014 | Noud DCJ grants plaintiff’s solicitors’ leave to withdraw as solicitors on the record |
17 September 2014 | Defendant application requesting strike outs and deemed admissions. |
2 October 2014 | No appearance by the plaintiff. Kingham DCJ orders:
|
8 October 2014 | Defendants file amended application |
16 October 2014 | Plaintiff appears with Ronald Biggs as support person. Kingham DCJ orders:
|
21 October 2014 | Plaintiff appears with Ronald Biggs as support person. Kingham DCJ orders:
|
23 October 2014 | Plaintiff retains Catton Roderick Lawyers |
31 October 2014 | Kingham DCJ orders:
|
20 November 2014 | Defendants’ application heard. Kingham DCJ reserves judgment. |
Footnotes
[1] Basha v Basha [2010] QCA 123 at [23].
[2] Letters sent on 7 December 2011, 3 September 2014, 9 September 2014
[3] [2000] QCA 178 at [2].
[4] Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 166
[5] Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest Pty Ltd & Ors [2013] QSC 211 at [59]-[72]:
[6] Uniform Civil Proceedings Rules 1999 r 183
[7] Uniform Civil Proceedings Rules 1999 r 681
[8] Uniform Civil Proceedings Rules 1999 r 703
[9] Di Carlo v Dubois [2002] QCA 225 at [40].
[10] Affidavit of Wayne Leslie Hennig at [117]