Request for production of documents – UCPR r 222 – manner of compliance

In John Kallinicos Accountants Pty Ltd v Dundrenan Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 141 Irwin DCJ considered the nature of a party’s obligation under r 222 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) to produce documents referred to in the parties’ pleadings, particulars or affidavits. The decision examined whether the approach in Belela Pty Ltd v Menzies Excavation Pty Ltd [2005] 2 QdR 230 in relation to disclosure of documents under UCPR r 214 also applied to production of documents under r 222.

UCPR r 360 – offers to settle – joint offer by first and second plaintiffs

The decision in ACN 070 037 599 Pty Ltd v Larvik Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] QSC 118 involved a consideration of the implications for a plaintiff whose offer to settle under Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was made jointly with another plaintiff who abandoned her action before trial. The court found nothing wrong with the making of a joint offer. It concluded the successful plaintiff would be entitled to indemnity costs on the simple test of whether the judgment for that plaintiff was more favourable than the offer.

UCPR r243 - notice of non-party disclosure - obligation to state allegation to which documents sought are directly relevant

In Deppro Pty Ltd v Hannah [2008] QSC 193 one of the matters considered by the court related to the requirement in r 243 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that a notice of non-party disclosure must “state the allegation in issue in the pleadings about which the document sought is directly relevant.”The approach adopted by the issuing party in this case of asserting that documents sought by a notice of non-party disclosure are relevant to allegations in numbered paragraphs in pleadings, and serving copies of the pleadings with the notice, is not uncommon in practice. This decision makes it clear that this practice is fraught with danger. In circumstances where it is not apparent that the non-party has been fully apprised of the relevant issues the decision suggests an applicant for non-party disclosure who has not complied with the requirements of s 243 might be required to issue a fresh, fully compliant notice, and to suffer associated costs consequences.

Service difficulties - Will UCPR r 117 provide the answer?

In Amci Pty Ltd ACN 124 249 485 v Corcoal Management Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 50 Jackson J considered an application for an order under r117 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in relation to informal service of an originating process on a corporation registered in the Ajman Free Zone in the United Arab Emirates. The decision appears to be the first time a Queensland court has examined the scope of r117 of the UCPR, and relevant considerations influencing the exercise of the discretion under the rule, when the defendant is outside Australia.

Pleading - self-incrimination and penalty privileges

In Anderson v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2012] QCA 301 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal from the decision of the primary judge (ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd No 3 [2012] QSC 74. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the defendants’ non-compliance with the pleading rules in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) was justified by the claims to privilege against self-incrimination or exposure to a penalty.

Settlement offers on appeal : when might costs be awarded on the indemnity basis?

In Roberts v Prendergast [2013] QCA 89 the respondent had offered to settle the appeal, purporting to make the offer under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). Differing views were expressed in the Court of Appeal regarding the impact in the circumstances of the offer to settle, with the majority concluding that the appellant should pay the respondent’s costs on the standard basis.

Plain facts about pleading : how to work with r 166

The decision of Durward SC DCJ in OSM Group Pty Ltd v Holden [2013] QDC 151 involves a useful consideration of the requirements relating to the pleading of denials and non-admissions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). In particular, the decision examines the extent of the obligations when pleading in response to allegations of law, or of mixed fact and law.

A clear view of costs ‘of and incidental to’ : Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271

In Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest (No.2) Pty Ltd [2013] QSC 271 Jackson J provided considered analysis of several aspects of costs law. His Honour regarded various orders which are commonly sought or made as reflecting practice that is inappropriate or unnecessary under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Court stands firm on disclosure via subpoena

In Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd v Gooden [2014] QDC 22 Reid DCJ considered the interaction of the procedures under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)relating to disclosure by parties to a proceeding and the subpoena process, in the context of a proceeding commenced by originating application.

A lesson in costs recovery

In La Spina v Macdonnells Law [2014] QSC 44 the Queensland Court of Appeal set aside a judgment entered in circumstances where the appellant had not been given the requisite notice of the application under r31 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(UCPR). The court found there had been a denial of natural justice. The court also considered whether in any event the entry of judgment in the circumstances was a proper exercise of the powers which may be exercised on an application for directions under r743H of the UCPR.

Admissions of law or fact?

In Pollock v Thiess Pty Ltd, McMeekin J considered two applications for the withdrawal of deemed admissions. The judgment provides important guidance on pleadings and deemed admissions under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Counting the costs : assessments under the UCPR

In McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd [2001] QDC 142 the court considered a number of significant issues in relation to assessments of costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The Court of Appeal subsequently declined an application for leave to appeal the decision under s118(3) of the District Court Act 1967 (McCoombes v Curragh Queensland Mining Ltd [2001] QCA 379. The judgment in the District Court, and on some matters the subsequent observations in the Court of Appeal, provide clarification in respect of many issues relating the assessment of costs under the UCPR.

Setting aside default judgment - whether applicant must file affidavit providing direct evidence of defence 'on the merits'

In Prus-Butwilowicz v Moxey [2002] QDC 166 the court examined the question whether an applicant for an order setting aside a default judgment was required to file an affidavit providing direct evidence of a defence 'on the merits' and whether the position had changed under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

Costs assessor selection: A question of timing, or cost?

In Lessbrook Pty Ltd (in liq) v Whap; Stephen; Bowie; Kepa & Kepa [2014] QCA 63 the Queensland Court of Appeal dealt with significant questions of general application relating to the appointment of assessors to conduct an assessment of costs under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

Evidence in view: Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256

Rule 478 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)(view by court) is silent as to the manner in which a court might be expected to exercise the discretion to order an inspection or demonstration under the rule and also as to the use which may be made of any inspection or demonstration ordered. The decision in Matton Developments Pty Ltd v CGU Insurance Limited [2014] QSC 256 provides guidance on both matters. This case provides some guidance on the circumstances in which a court may exercise its discretion to order a view or demonstration