Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r150 : orders relating to "property" – whether sperm extracted and stored may be characterised as “property”

In Bazley v Wesley Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2010] QSC 118 an order was made under r 250 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) requiring the respondent to continue to hold and maintain straws of semen belonging to the applicant’s deceased husband. The decision includes a useful analysis of the development of the common law regarding property rights in human bodies and body parts.

Practice and Procedure : UCPR r 7 - power to extend time

In McIntosh & Anor as Trustees of the Estate of Camm (A Bankrupt) v Linke Nominees Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] QCA 410 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered the extent of the court’s power under r 7(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (“UCPR”) to extend time, and in particular whether the rule applied so as to permit extension of the period specified under rule 667 for varying or setting aside an order. The case also provides an illustration of circumstances in which the court might be expected to depart from the general principle that a successful litigant is entitled to the costs of the litigation.

Costs - UCPR rr 681 and 684

In BHP Coal Pty Ltd v K Orenstein & Koppel AG (No 2) [2009] QSC 64 McMurdo J considered the circumstances in which the ordinary rule under r 681 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) that costs should follow the event should be departed from in favour of a party who was unsuccessful overall, but who succeeded on particular questions. When the court is satisfied that a departure from the usual order under r 681 of the UCPR is justified, it appears increasingly willing to exercise the power in r 684(2) to declare what percentage of costs was applicable to a particular issue

UCPR 229 - defamation proceedings – damages to be assessed – application to interrogate as to defendant’s motive - implications of Defamation ACT 2005 - application to interrogate before action - when in the interests of justice

In Hogan v Ellery [2009] QDC 154 McGill DCJ considered two applications for leave to deliver interrogatories under r 229 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR). The judgment provides useful analysis of the circumstances in which a plaintiff may obtain leave to deliver interrogatories to a defendant in defamation proceedings, and also to a non-party before action.

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.

Trial by jury in civil proceedings : “convenience” and the philosophy of the UCPR

In Syddall v National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited [2008] QSC 101 Daubney J ordered the action be tried without a jury. His judgment considered the circumstances in which a trial involves any technical, scientific or other issue that can not be “conveniently” considered and resolved by a jury as provided in r 474 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

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.

Offers to settle - by the rules

In Balnaves v Smith [2012] QSC 408 Byrne SJA concluded that an offer to settle could be an “offer to settle” under Chapter 9 Part 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) despite the inclusion of non-monetary terms. His Honour took a different approach to that taken by Moynihan SJA in Taske v Occupational & Medical Innovations Ltd [2007] QSC 147.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

My Kitchen Rules pair are all the rage on social media – for now

The launch of the current series of My Kitchen Rules has undoubtedly been successful, both in terms of television ratings and in capturing a social media audience, clearly winning the battle for the Twitter audience on premiere night, and maintaining a lead over both The Block and The Biggest Loser since then. But it is the controversy surrounding Perth contestants Kelly Ramsay and Chloe James that has dominated media coverage today, detailing the abuse to which they have been subjected on social media.

Practice and procedure - Disclosure of documents - application of UCPR r222 to documents referred to in exhibit to affidavit

In Century Drilling Limited v Gerling Australia Insurance Company Pty Limited [2004] QSC 120 Holmes J considered the application of a number of significant rules impacting on the obligation to disclose under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

Practice and Procedure - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 212(2) - whether draft expert reports must be disclosed

In Mitchell Contractors Pty Ltd v Townsville-Thuringowa Water Supply Joint Board [2004] QSC 329, Douglas J considered the issue of broad significance for litigation practitioners of whether draft expert reports fall within the description in r212(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) of documents "consisting of a statement or report of an expert" and are therefore not privileged from disclosure.

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.