Pleadings

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules have brought significant changes to the rules of pleading. The rules place a heavy emphasis on 'truth in pleading', and early identification of the true issues between the parties. There are now a number of pleading rules dealing with specific issues. The changes in the rules are most significant with respect to the level of particulars required for pleading damages, and the facts that must be pleaded in defences. In this article the rules of pleading are examined and contrasted with the rules applicable before the commencement of the UCPR.

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).

Costs assessment not an each-way bet: Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60

In Radich v Kenway [2014] QDC 60 McGinness DCJ considered issues relating to the assessment of costs under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). This recent costs assessment case from the District Court clearly illustrates the interplay between the relevant elements of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.

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

Obvious error in approach to default costs assessment

The decision of Henry J in Ginn & Anor v Ginn; ex parte Absolute Law Lawyers & Attorneys [2015] QSC 49 provides clarification of the approach to be taken on a default costs assessment under r708 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Costs on review - what charges are appropriate?

In Picamore Pty Ltd v Challen [2015] QDC 067 McGill DCJ considered the nature of a review under r742 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) in the context of a review of a costs assessment conducted under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). His Honour increased the amount that had been allowed by the costs assessor for a number of items. The judgment includes observations about what may appropriately be charged for particular items of legal work.

Trial by jury election less of a trial

In Kencian v Watney [2015] QCA 212 the Queensland Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against the decision in Watney v Kencian & Wooley [2014] QSC 290 and ordered, pursuant to r475(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) that the trial proceed as a trial by jury.

No variance for filed orders: Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260

In Hayes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2015] QCA 260 the Queensland Court of Appeal examined the relationship between rules 7 (extending and shortening time) and 667 (setting aside) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and held that r667(1) does not enable the court to set aside or vary an order after the order has been filed. The court found that, to the extent that this conclusion was contrary to the decision in McIntosh v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd [2010] 1 Qd R 152, the decision in McIntosh was wrong and should not be followed.

Rules of civil procedure for the United States District Courts. : Hearing[s] Seventy-fifth Congress, third session, on S.J. Res. 281, a joint resolution to postpone the effective date of the Rules of civil procedure.

[pt.1] Hearing, April 18, 1938.--pt.2. Hearing, May 19, 1938.

District Court debt decisions

This article examines the distinction between a "liquidated demand" and a claim for "unliquidated damages" and the implications of that distinction on the procedure for obtaining a judgment if the defendant fails to file a notice of intention to defend.

A nod to consent : in step with the UCPR

This article considers the decision of Robin DCJ in CTP Manager Limited v Ascent Pty Ltd [2011] QDC 74 and the likely impact of the decision on the practice in the court registries in similar circumstances.

Application to set aside statutory demand

In C & E Pty Ltd v Corrigan [2006] QCA 47, the Queensland Court of Appeal considered whether r103 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules applied to the service of an application to set aside a statutory demand under s459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The decision provides analysis and clarification of an issue that has clearly been one of some uncertainty.

Should the court direct that costs ordered to be recovered on the indemnity basis be assessed by reference to a costs agreement between the successful party and their solicitors?

The decision in Hook v Boreham & QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited [2006] QDC 304 considered whether the court should go further than order that costs be assessed on the indemnity basis, but should also specify the basis by which those indemnity costs should be determined. The decision makes it clear that under r704(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, questions of that nature are ordinarily preserved to the discretion of the Registrar.