Disclosure of documents : production for inspection

In Altmann v Ioff of Victoria Friendly Society [2004] QDC 005 McGill DCJ considered the practical question in relation to disclosure of documents as to whether a party disclosing bundles of documents under UCPR r 217 was obliged to number or otherwise individually identify the documents

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.

Non-party disclosure - UCPR r 242(2)

In TSPD Pty Ltd v Resortrez Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 001 Fryberg J made an order permitting the applicant to inspect and copy documents which had been produced to the court under a subpoena, but had remained in the registry. Though not essential to the decision the judgment contains some interesting discussion about the construction of r 242 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR).

UCPR rule 687 - exercise of discretion to fix costs - applicable principles

Although the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) (UCPR) have always included a power for the court to order a party to pay an amount for costs to be fixed by the court, until recently the power was rarely used in the higher courts. In light of recent practice directions, and the changes to the procedures for assessment of costs contained in the new Chapter 17A of the UCPR, this is no longer the case. The judgment of Mullins J in ASIC v Atlantic 3 Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd [2008] QSC 9 provides some helpful guidance for practitioners about the principles which might be applied.

Pleading for privilege : Denials and non-admissions under the UCPR

The decision in ASIC v Managed Investments Ltd No 3 [2012] QSC 74 provides practitioners with useful guidance on the relationship between the privileges against self-incrimination and exposure to a penalty, and the UCPR requirements for denials and non-admissions.

Practice and Procedure: UCPR r 708 - costs order against several defendants and third party

Glenwood Homes Pty Ltd v Everhard [2008] QSC 192 involved the not uncommon situation where one costs order is made against several parties represented by a single firm of solicitors. Dutney J considered the implications when only some of the parties liable for the payment of the costs file a notice of objection to the costs statement served in respect of those costs.

Practice and Procedure : UCPR r 95

In Energex Limited v Sablatura [2009] QSC 356 the difficulty facing the applicant related not to its substantive rights, but to its ability to vindicate those rights without an effective respondent to the application. The case highlights issues that may confront an applicant or plaintiff in vindicating rights it may have against a person who is or becomes under a legal incapacity, if there is no-one other than the Public Trustee able to act as litigation guardian.

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.