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.

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.

Interrogatories - Who may be interrogated

In Pacific Century Production Pty Ltd v Netafirm Australia Pty Ltd [2004] QSC 043 the court was asked for the first time to consider the application of rule 229(1)(b) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (the UCPR)

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).

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.

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).

The doctrine of necessity and the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment: Is there any justification?

In Australia, the legal basis for the detention and restraint of people with intellectual impairment is ad hoc and unclear. There is no comprehensive legal framework that authorises and regulates the detention of, for example, older people with dementia in locked wards or in residential aged care, people with disability in residential services or people with acquired brain injury in hospital and rehabilitation services. This paper focuses on whether the common law doctrine of necessity (or its statutory equivalents) should have a role in permitting the detention and restraint of people with disabilities. Traditionally, the defence of necessity has been recognised as an excuse, where the defendant, faced by a situation of imminent peril, is excused from the criminal or civil liability because of the extraordinary circumstances they find themselves in. In the United Kingdom, however, in In re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) and R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L, the House of Lords broadened the defence so that it operated as a justification for treatment, detention and restraint outside of the emergency context. This paper outlines the distinction between necessity as an excuse and as a defence, and identifies a number of concerns with the latter formulation: problems of democracy, integrity, obedience, objectivity and safeguards. Australian courts are urged to reject the United Kingdom approach and retain an excuse-based defence, as the risks of permitting the essentially utilitarian model of necessity as a justification are too great.

A growing good faith in contracts

The Supreme Court of Canada's ruling in Bhasin v Hrynew represents a significant step forward in harmonising the multiple strands of debate surrounding the existence of a good faith provision in common law contracting. Although a general principle of good faith (derived from Roman Law) is recognized by most civil law systems and a growing number of common law countries have embraced statutory provisions towards this end, Bhasin v Hrynew is argued to be a critical advance in catalysing uniform acceptance of good faith as a fundamental principle essential to support an increasingly integrated global commercial environment.

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