obiter | ByLawyers News and Updates

Overriding purpose – Litigation – QLD

By

New case added to Queensland litigation guides

All six of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides have been updated to provide a link to a recent case on the importance of the ‘Overriding purpose’ provision of the UCPR and the costs sanctions that might apply where it is breached.

The ‘Overriding purpose’

Rule 5 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that the overriding purpose of the rules is to provide for the expeditious resolution of the real issues in civil proceedings at a minimum of expense. That requires the courts to have the objective of avoiding undue delay, expense and technicality.

Under Rule 5 all parties to proceedings impliedly undertake to conduct their case in an expeditious way. Where they breach this undertaking, the court may dismiss the proceedings or apply costs sanctions. Francis v MSF Sugar Limited [2020] QSC 16 is a stark example of the court doing so.

Costs sanctions

In making indemnity costs orders in favour of the plaintiff in this case, the court noted:

[23] The defendant has conducted itself in this court quite unreasonably – failing to disclose directly relevant documents until the eve of the trial and pleading matters that were false,
according to its own records, and which it could not prove by admissible evidence. This unreasonable conduct has caused the plaintiff to incur unnecessary costs, including costs
thrown away by yesterday’s adjournment and today’s application and short adjournment. It also likely delayed the determination of the plaintiff’s claim and prevented the matter
resolving on an agreed basis without the need for a trial.

Publication updates

The commentary in each of the By Lawyers Queensland litigation guides already highlights the importance of the Overriding purpose provisions. This useful new case illustrates the court’s approach to compliance with Rule 5 and the possible sanctions that will be applied. it has been added to each of the Acting for the Plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides in the By Lawyers Supreme Court, District Court and Magistrates Court publications.

 

101 Succession Answers – NSW

By

Following an author review new cases have been added and other enhancements made to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Succession Answers (NSW).

Nobarani v Mariconte [2018] HCA 36

This case supports the requirement of an ‘interested’ party wishing to challenge the validity of a will to show that they have rights which will be affected by the disputed grant of probate or administration.

Re Estates Brooker-Pain and Soulos [2019] NSWSC 671

Considerations regarding disclosure of documents and information in contested probate proceedings were extensively discussed. This case analysed the applicable law, practice and procedure in the context of applications to set aside subpoenas and notices to produce which called for documents relating to the making of the disputed wills. This included solicitors’ notes and files. The interplay between subpoenas, the court’s Practice Note SC Eq 11 and case management orders was examined in detail.

The court addressed the determination of ‘legitimate forensic purpose’ in such cases, especially where pleadings had not closed and the issues in dispute were uncertain. This decision has therefore been added to the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Subpoena Answers too.

The court also commented on the practice of sending ‘Larke v Nugus’ letters to ‘…a person involved in the preparation or execution of a will…[seeking] disclosures about the circumstances in which a will was prepared or executed’.

Application of NSW Trustee & Guardian; Estate of Dudley Keith Vaughn [2019] NSWSC 850 and In the Estate of Hansie Hart [2019] ACTSC 317

These two recent cases each dealt with issues relating to the presumption of death.

Gregory Joseph Mills as trustee v Julie Elizabeth Mills and Ors [2018] NSWSC 363

This case is instructive as to the considerations the court applies when giving judicial advice and determining construction issues on testamentary trusts.

Finnegan & Anor v Garner & Ors [2019] QSC 100

Here the estate faced claims which, if they were resolved by litigation would result in the estate being consumed by legal costs. The court noted, at [10], that:

It is the duty of trustees of the estate not to embark upon expensive litigation which will have the effect of depleting the estate. In Macedonian Orthodox Community Church St Petka Inc v His Eminence Petar The Diocesan Bishop of The Macedonian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Hayne and Heydon JJ said that: “a trustee who is sued should take no step in defence of the suit without first obtaining judicial advice about whether it is proper to defend the proceedings.”

Koellner v Spicer [2019] NSWSC 1571

On a family provision claim, an adult child with a medical condition and meagre financial resources was awarded a 35% legacy from the reasonably small estate even though the deceased had expressly excluded him on the basis they had no relationship.

Grant v Roberts; Smith v Smith; Roberts v Smith; Curtis v Smith [2019] NSWSC 843

The court emphasised, including by reference to the ‘overriding principles’ of the Civil Procedure Act, the duty on parties to contain costs in family provision litigation. The court heavily criticised disproportionate costs being incurred.

 

Like all By Lawyers Reference Materials, 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is updated regularly to cover developments in case law and procedure.

Subpoena objections – FED and All states

By

A new case on subpoena objections has been added to the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Weeks v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 268, the court considered whether a subpoena in a defamation case should be set aside for lack of  a legitimate forensic purpose (LFP).

The court succinctly stated the law on LFP, to the effect that The issuing party must identify expressly and with precision the legitimate forensic purpose for which they seek access to the documents. The issuing party must then satisfy the court that it is ‘on the cards’ that the documents would materially assist the issuing party in their defence‘.

In this regard the Court followed the leading LFP cases of R v Saleam (1989) 16 NSWLR 14 and Alister v R (1984) 154 CLR 404, 414. The Court also followed the earlier Western Australian full court decision of Stanley v Layne Christensen Co [2004] WASCA 50 regarding legitimate forensic purpose. The subpoena in this case was set aside.

This Western Australian decision has been added to 101 Subpoena Answers under the section on Legitimate forensic purpose in civil cases. This publication is an excellent resource for practitioners conducting litigation and dealing with subpoenas in all courts, whether issuing or responding, and including subpoena objections.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in all By Lawyers state court Litigation publications, as well as our Family Law, Family Provision, Injuries, Employment Law and Defamation guides.

 

Improving written submissions – All states

By

A new article ‘Improving Written Submissions’ by Judge Alan Troy of the District Court of Western Australia has been added to the Reference Materials folder on the matter plan in all By Lawyers Litigation guides.

His Honour’s article, first published in Brief, the Journal of the Law Society of Western Australia, is full of valuable tips for improving written submissions. It will greatly assist practitioners when they are preparing submissions for all types of matters, in all courts.

The article emphasises the need to use clear and plain English, to be brief and succinct, to persuade the court via credible legal argument and to logically structure the submissions. His Honour recommends stating the main point of the argument at the outset and introducing each topic with a brief summary of the real substance of the issue to which it relates.

Drawing on his substantial experience both as an advocate and on the bench, Judge Troy gives specific and very practical guidance on how practitioners can best construct written submissions with these tenets in mind. His Honour’s tips include the use of a chronology, ways to structure both the text and the arguments and the importance of ruthless final editing.

By Lawyers are very pleased to make this helpful article available to our subscribers across Australia.

Subpoenas – Legitimate forensic purpose – VIC

By

Subpoenas and the considerations for setting them aside were considered recently in Walters v Perton [2019] VSC 356.

The court in its probate jurisdiction, was considering an application to set aside two subpoenas under r 42.04 Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, which provides that a court may set aside all or part of a subpoena which is an abuse of process. The applicant submitted that there was no legitimate forensic purpose for the subpoenas.

At [30] the court succinctly stated the principles which govern an application to set aside subpoenas in civil cases, with reference to the leading authorities on legitimate forensic purpose. This is a useful statement of the principles and summary of the cases. At [30] the court noted:

(a) the subpoena process under Order 42 should not be used as a substitute for discovery or non-party discovery;

(b) it is necessary for the party at whose request the subpoena was issued to identify expressly and precisely the legitimate forensic purpose for which access to the documents is sought;

(c) except in cases where the subpoena is plainly too broad and merits the description of a fishing expedition, the judge should normally inspect the documents for the purpose of making a final decision as to whether a legitimate forensic purpose exists;

(d) however, the Court will not require production of subpoenaed documents, and will not permit access to subpoenaed documents, if the subpoena is expressed so broadly that the applicant cannot demonstrate, having identified a forensic purpose, that it is ‘on the cards’ or that there is a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the documents will materially assist the case of the party.

(e) the subpoena must sufficiently describe the documents to be produced so as to not require the recipient to make a judgment about the documents being sought and must not be oppressive or fishing (a ‘fishing expedition’ is not a legitimate forensic purpose and will not be permitted);

(f) The relevance of a document to the proceeding alone will not substantiate an assertion of legitimate forensic purpose. There is no legitimate forensic purpose if the party is seeking to obtain documents to see whether they may be of relevance or of assistance in his or her case. The test of relevance, however, may be a general one, particularly where the Court has only a general idea of the nature of the evidence which may be led as relevant to an issue or as to credit of an expected witness;

(g) A mere assertion of bad faith by an applicant or that something might be found demonstrating bad faith is not enough – the criteria set out in paragraph (c) must be satisfied; and

(h) Where a party fails to demonstrate a legitimate forensic purpose, the Court should refuse access to the documents and set aside the subpoena.

The court also commented on legitimate forensic purpose in probate proceedings specifically. The court noted that legitimate forensic purpose in probate proceedings may be informed by the court’s inquisitorial role which requires a greater supervision and control of proceedings than adversarial common law proceedings.

This case has been added to the By Lawyers Reference Guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

Service of documents outside Australia – QLD

By

The rules in Queensland courts relating to service of documents outside Australia have been amended.

The Uniform Civil Procedure (Service Outside Australia) Amendment Rule 2019 (Qld) has inserted a new Chapter 4, Part 7, Division 1 into the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The new Division 1 of Part 7 consists of two subdivisions, dealing with the Supreme Court and the District and Magistrates courts respectively.

The amendments are to incorporate the harmonised rules for service of documents outside Australia originating from the Council of Chief Justices’ Rules Harmonisation Committee. The amendments are minimal, relating mainly to terminology and consistency between jurisdictions.

The rules provide for the service of documents outside Australia, not including New Zealand, which is already covered by the provisions of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth).

The commentaries in the following By Lawyers litigation guides have been amended accordingly:

Commercial arbitration – UCPR – QLD

By

Recent amendments to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) provide for processes when Queensland courts become involved in commercial arbitration matters.

The Uniform Civil Procedure (Commercial Arbitration) Amendment Rule 2019 (QLD) introduces a new Chapter 9A into the UCPR which deals with all aspects of arbitrations under the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) and the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

The Queensland Act is harmonised with commercial arbitration acts in other Australian jurisdictions and largely reflects the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration as adopted by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law on 21 June 1985, with amendments as adopted by that Commission in 2006 (‘Model Law’).

The new rules relate to applications under the Acts, or the Model Law, including applications:

  • for a stay and referral to arbitration in existing proceedings before the court;
  • to enforce a foreign arbitration award;
  • to issue subpoenas in arbitration matters;
  • relating to evidence for arbitrations;
  • relating to disclosure of confidential information in relation to arbitrations;
  • to set aside an arbitrator’s award;
  • to enforcement an arbitrator’s award;
  • for leave to apply to the court for the determination of a question of law arising in the course of an arbitration;
  • for leave to appeal on a question of law arising out of an award.

The commentaries in the By Lawyers litigation guides for QLD Supreme Court Civil and District Court Civil have been amended accordingly.

Magistrates Court – Subpoenas – VIC

By

New forms for Magistrates Court Subpoenas

The By Lawyers Victorian Magistrates’ Court – Civil guide has been updated to reflect recent changes to the Magistrates Court rules affecting subpoenas in civil matters.

The Magistrates’ Court General Civil Procedure (Miscellaneous Amendments) Rules 2018, which amend the Magistrates’ Court General Civil Procedure Rules 2010, came into effect on 15 October 2018.

These amendments make important changes to subpoena forms and processes in the Magistrates Court’s civil jurisdiction. The intention of the amendments is to harmonise Victoria with other Australian jurisdictions with regard to subpoenas.

Importantly, the existing form for Magistrates Court subpoenas, form 42A Subpoena to attend to give evidence, has been updated.

There are also two new forms for Magistrates Court subpoenas, forms – 42B, Subpoena to produce and 42C, Subpoena both to attend to give evidence and to produce.

For more information on Subpoenas generally, see the By Lawyers Reference Manual 101 Subpoena Answers located in the Reference Materials folder at the top of the matter plans in all By Lawyers litigation and criminal guides.

Courts and tribunals – 1 July fee increases and legislation updates

By

1 July always sees legislative changes, including increases to court fees. Happy New (financial) Year!

The following are some of the important changes commencing 1 July 2018. By Lawyers publications in each state have been updated as appropriate.

LITIGATION, CRIMINAL LAW, FAMILY LAW & DECEASED ESTATES

All States

Fee increases apply in all courts and tribunals.

Injury claims – where damages for permanent impairment and/or non-economic loss are subject to statutory caps (e.g. motor accidents and workers compensation legislation) these maximum amounts have been updated.

Defamation – the maximum amount of damages for non-economic loss available under the Uniform Defamation Law is now $398,500.

VIC Supreme Court

All documents for Supreme Court Common Law, Commercial Court and Costs Court matters must now be electronically filed using the RedCrest electronic filing platform. Court users will need to register. See the Supreme Court page ‘Electronic filing and case management’ and the commentary in the By Lawyers Victorian Supreme Court Guide

 

Connect with us