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.

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.

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.

Practice and procedure : an application under r367 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules may be of use in obtaining copies of otherwise unavailable documents held by government agencies.

In Bowenbrae Pty Ltd v Flying Fighters Maintenance and Restoration [2010] QDC 347 Reid DCJ made orders requiring the plaintiffs to make application under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth) (“the FOI Act”) for documents sought by the defendant.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd

In Central Queensland Mining Supplies Pty Ltd v Columbia Steel Casting Co Ltd [2011] QSC 183 Applegarth J considered complaints made by the defendant about the approach the plaintiff had taken in its endeavour to comply with its disclosure obligation under r 211 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The judgment also provides an indication of the direction the court is taking in relation to disclosure and document management in matters involving large numbers of documents.

Default judgment set aside without costs

A recent District Court case is believed to be the first in Queensland in which UCPR r 5 has been used to support the setting aside of a regularly entered default judgment without a costs order.

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.