Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR Qld) - Digest
back to table of provisionsChapter 14 – Particular proceedings
- Part 1 – Account
- [527] Order for account
- [528] Directions
- [529] Service of judgment
- [530] Form and verification
- [531] Filing and service
- [532] Challenging account
- [533] Witness
- [534] Allowances
- [535] Delay
- [536] Before whom account taken
- [537] Powers exercisable on taking account
- [538] Class interests
- [539] Reference to court
- [540] Certificate as to account
- [541] Further consideration
- [542] Procedure for inquiries
- [543] Directions
- [544] Definition for pt 2
- [545] Application of pt 2
- [546] Waiving compliance
- [547] Plaintiff’s statement of loss and damage
- [548] Plaintiff’s must identify particular documents
- [549] Plaintiff’s statement must be accurate
- [550] Defendant’s statement of expert and economic evidence
- [551] Defendant’s statement must identify particular documents
- [552] Defendant’s statement must be accurate
- [553] Conference if personal injury damages claim
- [554] Insurers
- [555] Privilege
- [556] Pleadings
- [557] Costs
- [558] Assessment of damages
- [559] Application of div 1
- [560] Payment or deposit of money in court
- [561] Disposal of money in court
- [564] Definitions for pt 4
- [565] Application of pt 4
- [566] Form of application for statutory order of review
- [567] Form of application for review
- [568] Application for statutory order of review and for review
- [569] Relief based on application for review if application made for statutory order of review
- [570] Filing documents
- [571] Setting directions hearing
- [572] Service on other parties
- [573] Orders and directions at directions hearing
- [574] Hearing and determination of application at directions hearing if parties agree
- [575] Non appearance of parties at directions hearing
- [576] Application for dismissal or stay at directions hearing
- [577] Application for dismissal to be made promptly
- [578] Application for costs order at directions hearing
- [579] Orders or directions about or for proceeding to be sought at directions hearing
- [580] Additional requirements for order of certiorari
- [581] No proceeding in relation to things done under mandamus order
- [582] Consolidation of proceedings for prerogative injunctions
- [583] Proceedings in relation to statements of reasons
- [584] Application by unincorporated body
- [585] Proceeding for declaration or injunction
[527] Order for account go to top
In order to take a proper account for the purpose of an order under r 527, the person ordered to take the account must evaluate the relevant financial records item by item: Re Cape Tribulation Reef Experiences Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 115, [21]-[24] (Wilson J).
[528] Directions go to top
An applicant may use the liberty afforded under r 528(2) to return to court and seek directions under r 528 about verifying an account: Wine Connection Pty Ltd as Trustee v Pitcliff Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 56, [38] (Henry J).
[529] Service of judgment go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[530] Form and verification go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[531] Filing and service go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[532] Challenging account go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[533] Witness go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[534] Allowances go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[535] Delay go to top
Rule 535 does not operate to the exclusion of r 389. It does not follow that the failure of a party aggrieved by delay to actively seek an order of the court under r 535 should remove its entitlement to the protection of r 389(2) and its requirement, in effect, that the inactive party must seek an order of the court where the delay exceeds two years: Wine Connection Pty Ltd as Trustee v Pitcliff Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 56, [22] (Henry J).
[536] Before whom account taken go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[537] Powers exercisable on taking account go to top
If a party ordered to take an account feels hampered by inadequate accounting records or disputes of fact when ascertaining what is required in ‘taking an account’ under the UCPR, he or she may exercise any of the powers under r 537: Re Cape Tribulation Reef Experiences Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 115, [22] (Wilson J).
[538] Class interests go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[539] Reference to court go to top
It is open to a party uncertain as to what is required in “taking an account” to seek guidance from the Court under r 539: Re Cape Tribulation Reef Experiences Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 115, [22] (Wilson J).
[540] Certificate as to account go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[541] Further consideration go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[542] Procedure for inquiries go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[543] Directions go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[544] Definition for pt 2 go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[545] Application of pt 2 go to top
The rules in Part 2 of Chapter 14 of the UCPR operate in tandem with the disclosure rules in Chapter 7, and impose somewhat more rigorous requirements upon claimants in the stated area of personal injury and fatal accident claims. They apply to documents relating to the issue of damages, not liability: Parr v Bavarian Steak House Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196; [2000] QCA 429, [24] (Thomas JA).
[546] Waiving compliance go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[547] Plaintiff’s statement of loss and damage go to top
The purpose and utility of a Statement of Loss and Damage is directed to timely disclosure of information in a personal injuries case, so that parties can attempt to settle the case, have it brought on for trial, frame offers to settle on a more informed basis than might otherwise be the case, and have a framework within which to prepare for trial. However, it is not a pleading and should not be treated as one. Nor does it supplant a pleading. UCPR Ch 6 contains express rules dealing with pleadings, and they do not apply to a Statement of Loss and Damage: AAI Limited v Marinkovic [2017] 2 Qd R 672 (CA) at [97].
The requirements of rr 150(1)(b) and 155 are not satisfied by pleading an intention to provide a statement of loss and damage under r 547: Meredith v Palmcam Pty Ltd [2001] 1 Qd R 645; [2000] QCA 113, [7] (McPherson JA, Thomas JA and Atkinson J).
Rules 547(3)(f) and 548(1)(e) are not to be read as excepting documents which would, in the absence of these rules, be protected by legal professional privilege; nor is the obligation created by r 548(2)(a) subject to such an exception: Parr v Bavarian Steak House Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196; [2000] QCA 429, [14] (Pincus JA, McPherson JA agreeing).
The provisions of r 547(3)(f) are so specific as to leave no room for qualification by reference to the common law presumption, despite its strength, of privilege for communications passing from client to solicitor, or for the purpose of litigation: Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [15] (Helman J), citing Parr v Bavarian Steak House [2001] 2 Qd R 196; [2000] QCA 429, 199 (McPherson JA).
By reason of rr 547 and 548, the plaintiff in a personal injuries action is obliged to disclose to the defendant statements she has given to her solicitors setting out evidence she might give about the issue of damages in that action: Parr v Bavarian Steak House Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196; [2000] QCA 429, [14] (Pincus JA), [16] (McPherson JA), [25] (Thomas JA).
Rule 547(3) requires a plaintiff’s statement of loss and damage to have (not to “identify”) “information” of various descriptions: Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630; [2002] QCA 332, [48] (Fryberg and Mullins JJ).
A statement of loss and damage will comply with r 547 where it gives the “relevant details”. An example is specifying a dollar sum as the basis of calculation of a claim in respect of future economic loss: Curry v Aughey [2004] 1 Qd R 128; [2003] QSC 172, [17] (de Jersey CJ).
Rules 547(3)(b)(i) and 548(1)(d) require that a plaintiff reveal his or her employment history going back for a period of only three years prior to the injury. The theory underlying the rules is that there ought to be some limit to the disclosure that a plaintiff must make and that a period of three years prior to the injury provides the defendant with a reasonable period on which to work for the purposes of estimating the plaintiff’s pre-accident earning capacity: Hoppe v Burns [2010] QSC 490, [33] (McMeekin J).
There is no absolute bar upon a court awarding damages in a higher amount than claimed in the pleadings or the statement of loss and damage: AAI Limited v Marinkovic [2017] 2 Qd R 672 (CA) at [105].
[548] Plaintiff’s must identify particular documents go to top
A plaintiff is not required to provide a copy of a document identified in the statement of expert and economic evidence if that document is privileged, unless it falls within the documents specifically described in r 548(1): Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [18] (Helman J).
A statement from a witness supporting the plaintiff's claim for damages is a document within r 548(1)(e) and must be included in the plaintiff's statement of loss and damage: Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630; [2002] QCA 332, [21] (McMurdo P).
It is at the time of trial that the evidence referred to in r 548(4) must be “identified” in a plaintiff’s statement of loss and damages. For these purposes “statement” must include any supplement to the statement served pursuant to r 549(2): Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630; [2002] QCA 332, [50] (Fryberg and Mullins JJ).
A decision under r 548(4) involves an exercise of discretion. “Special reason” is not a term of art; it carries no received technical connotations. What is special may be influenced by the context and flavour of the trial: Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630; [2002] QCA 332, [53] (Fryberg and Mullins JJ).
The facts that a claim is narrow and modest cannot, by themselves, constitute “special reason” within the meaning of r 548(4)(c): Campbell v Jones [2003] 1 Qd R 630; [2002] QCA 332, [53] (Fryberg and Mullins JJ).
Rules 547(3)(f) and 548(1)(e) are not to be read as excepting documents which would, in the absence of these rules, be protected by legal professional privilege; nor is the obligation created by r 548(2)(a) subject to such an exception: Parr v Bavarian Steak House Pty Ltd [2001] 2 Qd R 196; [2000] QCA 429, [14] (Pincus JA, McPherson JA agreeing).
“Evidence not identified” in r 548(4) refers to “evidence” which has found its way into documentary form and which is required to be referred to in a plaintiff's statement of loss and damage. Rule 548(4) does not oblige such a plaintiff to provide the defendant in advance of trial with proofs covering all evidence bearing on loss: Curry v Aughey [2004] 1 Qd R 128; [2003] QSC 172, [19] (de Jersey CJ).
Where a plaintiff omits to serve evidence on another party in a proceeding up to the time of filing of the request for trial date, the plaintiff will not be considered to have breached r 548(3) if the omission was not accompanied by an intention to rely on the evidence at trial: Oates v Cootes Tanker Service Pty Ltd [2006] 2 Qd R 42; [2005] QSC 213, 44 (Fryberg J).
In circumstances where a plaintiff desires to lead evidence which he or she could not have been expected to have led in the ordinary course of the proceeding, a “special reason” may exist for the purposes of r 548(4)(c), allowing the court to grant leave for the adduction of the evidence: Oates v Cootes Tanker Service Pty Ltd [2006] 2 Qd R 42; [2005] QSC 213, 45 (Fryberg J).
[549] Plaintiff’s statement must be accurate go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[550] Defendant’s statement of expert and economic evidence go to top
Rule 550 is the counterpart for defendants of r 547, which applies to plaintiffs, in requiring the defendant's statement of expert and economic evidence to give certain particulars: Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [10] (Helman J).
[551] Defendant’s statement must identify particular documents go to top
A defendant is not required to provide a copy of a document identified in the statement of expert and economic evidence if that document is privileged, unless it falls within the documents specifically described in r 551(1): Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [16]-[18] (Helman J).
[552] Defendant’s statement must be accurate go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[553] Conference if personal injury damages claim go to top
Where there is evidence a compliant r 553(1) notice has been given in a timely way, then prima facie, the inference that neglecting or refusing to attend the conference was unreasonable is a reasonable inference to draw. However where the defendant has made a bona fide attempt to negotiate with the plaintiff, this would counter an inference that the non-attendance was unreasonable: Meredith v Newman [2012] QSC 136, pp.4-5 (Henry J).
“Ready for trial” in r 553(3) does not mean in all respects, ready for trial. There may exist some minor matters remaining to be tended to, to be truly ready for trial, but which can have no material bearing on readiness to do justice to a case at a settlement conference or mediation: Meredith v Newman [2012] QSC 136, p.6 (Henry J).
[554] Insurers go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[555] Privilege go to top
Rule 555, introduced in 2001, was intended to “restore in some measure the protection traditionally afforded by legal professional privilege”: Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [17] (Helman J); Brophy v Dawson [2003] QSC 346, [13] (Jones J).
The reference to the “express requirements” of rr 548 and 551 in r 555 is to those express requirements in rr 548(1) and 551(1) and not to the general requirements made by rr 548(2) and 551(2): Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [18] (Helman J).
Part 2 of Chapter 14 of the UCPR does not oblige the plaintiff, in a proceeding for damages for personal injury, to give the defendant copies of documents provided by the plaintiff’s solicitors to an expert witness for the purpose of preparing a report on the plaintiff’s condition: Mahoney v Noosa District Community Hospital Ltd [2003] 1 Qd R 168; [2002] QSC 116, [1], [19] (Helman J).
In respect of any documents sought to be disclosed, privilege may validly be claimed, provided such communication is made for the purpose of confidential use in the litigation. However, if the correspondence sought to be disclosed was merely documentation generated by the expert and information recorded in one form or another by the expert in forming his opinion, then such documentation is not the proper subject for a claim of legal professional privilege: Brophy v Dawson [2003] QSC 346, [16] (Jones J).
[556] Pleadings go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[557] Costs go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[558] Assessment of damages go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[559] Application of div 1 go to top
Repealed.
[560] Payment or deposit of money in court go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[561] Disposal of money in court go to top
Whilst in certain special instances definitions in the UCPR define “party” widely enough to bring in persons who are not strictly parties to a proceeding, those special definitions do not apply to the term “parties” within the meaning of in r 561(1): Re AMP Bank Ltd [2012] QDC 105, p. 6 (Judge Robin QC).
[564] Definitions for pt 4 go to top
Rules 564 to 569 of the UCPR contemplate a close correspondence between an application brought for a statutory order of review and an application for review, that is, part 3 applications (made pursuant to ss 20, 21 or 22 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)) and part 5 applications (made pursuant to s 43 of the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld)): Bloomer Constructions (Qld) Pty Ltd v O'Sullivan [2009] QSC 220, [13] (White J).
[565] Application of pt 4 go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[566] Form of application for statutory order of review go to top
Form 54 is the approved form of application for a statutory order of review under r 566: Amos v Elizabeth Hall, Referee, Small Claims Tribunal [2006] QSC 397, [12] (Atkinson J).
A statutory order of review under r 566 is available only for an administrative decision, and not a judicial decision: Amos v Elizabeth Hall, Referee, Small Claims Tribunal [2006] QSC 397, [12] (Atkinson J).
[567] Form of application for review go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[568] Application for statutory order of review and for review go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[569] Relief based on application for review if application made for statutory order of review go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[570] Filing documents go to top
The equivalent provision of r 570 of the UCPR, O 54 r 3 of the Federal Court Rules, is not intended to deal with issues as to the admissibility of “section 13” (now section 33) statements at trial. The rule is facultative and allows the judge to have access to the document in order to assist with determining the appropriate directions for the conduct of the proceedings: [1990] 23 FCR 162, 165 (Davies J).
[571] Setting directions hearing go to top
If the circumstances are urgent, it is permissible to seek declarations under the Judicial Review Act (Qld) by originating application, instead of by an application made pursuant to r 571. By doing so, it will avoid the requirement that there be a directions hearing within 14 days of the matter being filed: TBR v Southern Queensland Regional Parole Board [2010] QSC 204, [71]-[74] (Ann Lyons J).
[572] Service on other parties go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[573] Orders and directions at directions hearing go to top
When an application is made pursuant to the Judicial Review Act 1991 (Qld), a directions hearing is to be set down for the purpose of r 573. Rule 573 gives examples of the matters that can be the subject of direction orders, but does not include cross-examination. In those circumstances, whether there will be a direction for cross-examination of a decision maker is to be dealt with in accordance with r 439 and in accordance with the “justice of the particular case”: Cummins v Chief Executive, Dept of Corrective Services [2005] QSC 202, [4]-[6] (White J).
[574] Hearing and determination of application at directions hearing if parties agree go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[575] Non appearance of parties at directions hearing go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[576] Application for dismissal or stay at directions hearing go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[577] Application for dismissal to be made promptly go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[578] Application for costs order at directions hearing go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[579] Orders or directions about or for proceeding to be sought at directions hearing go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[580] Additional requirements for order of certiorari go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[581] No proceeding in relation to things done under mandamus order go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[582] Consolidation of proceedings for prerogative injunctions go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[583] Proceedings in relation to statements of reasons go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[584] Application by unincorporated body go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[585] Proceeding for declaration or injunction go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[586] Definition for pt 5 go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[587] Application of pt 5 go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[588] Originating process go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[589] Application to court go to top
The writ of habeas corpus is dealt with in the UCPR in Chapter 14 Part 5. An application for the writ of habeas corpus may be started only by application. The jurisdiction to issue a writ of habeas corpus or to order the release of a person from restraint is exercisable by a single judge pursuant to r 589(1). The application may be made by the person under restraint or by another person: Pytellek v Evans [2011] QSC 210, [16] (Atkinson J).
[590] Parties go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[591] Form and procedure go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[592] Procedure on application go to top
The writ of habeas corpus in r 592 is directed at securing the release of a person unlawfully detained. It is the command of a superior court to a person detaining another to bring the person detained before the court and show legal cause for their detention: Pytellek v Evans [2011] QSC 210, [18] (Atkinson J).
[593] Return of writ of habeas corpus go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[594] Enforcement go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.
[595] Form of writ go to top
The meaning of this rule does not appear to have been considered in any published decision of a Queensland court.