obiter | ByLawyers News and Updates

Personal injury – QLD

By

A useful recent case has been added to the commentary in the By Lawyers Personal injury – QLD publication.

In Folwell v Mayer [2020] QSC 162 the court allowed the applicant an extension of time. The circumstances were that the applicant had issued a complying notice of claim under Part 1 of the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld) within the limitation period, but had not otherwise completed the pre-litigation procedures required under the Act and was out of time to commence proceedings.

The applicant applied under s 59 of the Act for leave to commence proceedings even though the limitation period had expired.

The court reviewed the legislation and the cases on such applications, in some detail.

The factual circumstances were also examined closely, especially the chronology of the steps taken in relation to the matter by the applicant and her solicitors. These factual details proved to be determinative, as is usually the case in such applications.

The court found that the applicant herself had been less than pro-active in pursuing her claim, but further found that ‘… on the material before the court, the failure to conscientiously comply with the legislative requirements… rests predominantly with the applicant’s solicitor, rather than the applicant herself.’

The court also noted that ‘…the respondent does not identify any specific prejudice it will suffer if the application is granted.’

In the circumstances, notwithstanding the delay, the court determined that the applicant had an arguable claim and there could still be a fair trial. Accordingly the court ruled that ‘…the interests of justice favour exercising the discretion to grant the application to alter the limitation period under s 59’.

The case has been added to the commentary in Personal injury – QLD under Limitation periods.

Re-issued practice notes – NSW

By

The Supreme Court has re-issued practice notes in relation to procedure in the Common Law division for some of the court’s specialist lists. The additions and amendments to these Practice Notes mainly clarify or enhance aspects of case management by the court.

The Re-issued Practice Notes are as follows:

SC CL 7 – Professional Negligence List

SC CL 6 – Possession List

SC CL 4 – Defamation List

SC CL 3 – Administrative & Industrial Law List

There are also corresponding and additional minor amendments to SC CL 1 General regarding case management in the Common Law Division generally.

All these amended practice notes commenced from 25 May 2020, except PN CL 7 which will commence 1 June 2020.

The By Lawyers Supreme Court Common Law – Acting for the plaintiff and Acting for the Defendant guides contain numerous relevant links to these and other practice notes. The commentaries and links in these guides have been updated accordingly.

Subpoena objections – FED

By

New cases on subpoena objections in the Federal jurisdiction have been added to the By Lawyers reference guide 101 Subpoena Answers.

In Kitchen v Director of Professional Services Review under s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (No 3) [2020] FCA 634 the Federal Court affirmed McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1233 and also Tamawood Ltd v Habitare Developments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 364 to the effect that:

  • a request for a subpoena cannot be used to disguise an application for discovery of documents, or as an alternative to an application for further and better discovery;
  • documents for production must be identified with reasonable particularity;
  • the material sought must have an adjectival relevance, that is, an apparent relevance to the issues in the principal proceedings; there must be a legitimate forensic purpose for the production of documents;
  • a mere ‘fishing’ exercise can never justify the issue of subpoenas;
  • a wide-ranging subpoena seeking documents of doubtful relevance at great inconvenience to, or that risk compromising the commercial privacy of, a third party, may not readily attract the grant of leave; and
  • the issue of the subpoena must not, in all the circumstances, be oppressive in terms of its impact on the recipient.

101 Subpoena Answers is available in all By Lawyers litigation guides. It can assist practitioners with issuing and responding to subpoenas in all jurisdictions including the various grounds for subpoena objections.

Uniform Civil Rules – SA

By

The much heralded Uniform Civil Court Rules 2020 commenced in South Australia on 18 May 2020. CourtSA’s new electronic registry system commenced on the same day.

The new rules apply to proceedings commenced and steps taken in all SA civil proceedings on or after 18 May. They are to be cited at the Uniform Civil Rules 2020.

All By Lawyers SA litigation guides have been updated to reflect the new rules and procedures.

Significant amendments

The Uniform Civil Rules 2020 bring many changes.

Universal rules as to pleadings apply across all three courts and are found in Part 7 of the Rules, subject to exceptions for ‘minor civil actions’. There are specific rules for specific types of actions, for example, personal injury. There are some specific rules only applicable to the Magistrates Court.

Description of parties

One of the most significant changes is the terminology used to describe the parties. Under the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 a ‘plaintiff’ is now an ‘applicant’, a ‘defendant’ is now a ‘respondent’ and an ‘intervenor’ is now an ‘interested party’. These terms apply to all civil matters in all SA courts. By Lawyers commentary and precedents, including the titles of precedents, have been amended accordingly.

Pre-action requirements

Some of the major changes relate to pre-action requirements. The rules now specify:

  • how documents are to be served;
  • what is to be included in a pre-action claim, including a cost estimate if the matter were to proceed to trial;
  • a requirement for a pre-action response that includes a cost estimate;
  • a further response from the proposed applicant if a cross claim is indicated;
  • a pre-action third party notice and response if a third party is to be added;
  • a requirement for a pre-action negotiation meeting and subsequent report if the matter does not resolve.

There are serious procedural and costs implications for non-compliance with pre-action requirements.

Cross claims and set offs

There are also significant changes to the procedure for cross claims and set offs and claims against, or claims for contribution by, third parties. This includes time limits and requirements for filing and service of such claims.

Expert witnesses

The rules now set out in detail the obligations of parties regarding their letter requesting the expert report. They apply an expert code of conduct and address in detail the required content of an expert report.

Parties may request instead shorter, ‘summary reports’ from experts that address only the assumptions made and opinions held in summary form. These can attach only copies of documents that record instructions given to the expert, rather than comply fully with the disclosure obligations.

Family provision claims

The procedure for family provision claims previously set out under the Supreme Court rules has been streamlined. Notably the required information regarding other potential claimants no longer needs to be contained in a separate affidavit. See the By Lawyers commentaries in the Family Provision guides for more information on the changes.

Amendments to By Lawyers guides

The following By Lawyers SA publications have now been amended – and renamed, where applicable – in line with the Uniform Civil Rules 2020:

  • Magistrates Court Civil – Acting for the Applicant (formerly Magistrates Court Acting for the Plaintiff)
  • Magistrates Court Civil – Acting for the Respondent (formerly Magistrates Court – Acting for the Defendant)
  • Magistrates Court – Intervention Orders (located in Criminal Magistrates Court)
  • Family Provision Claims – Acting for the Applicant (Formerly Family Provision Claims Acting for the Plaintiff)
  • Family Provision Claims – Acting for the Respondent (Formerly Family Provision Claims Acting for the Estate)

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:

Connect with us