Category Archives: Pleadings

Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1 | 14 JANUARY 1997

ON 14 JANUARY 1997, the High Court of Australia delivered Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146; (1997) 141 ALR 353; (1997) 71 ALJR 294 (14 January 1997).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/1.html

Per Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ (at 154):

“Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of the court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim.”

The decision has since been used as an authority for the propositions that (1) doing justice between the parties is paramount to the court’s use of discretion when determining an application for leave to amend (2) case management principles should not limit a court’s discretion when considering such applications and (3) an application for leave to amend should be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to payment of costs by way of compensation.  Since the High Court’s 2007 decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/27.html, JL Holdings no longer is authority for propositions (2) and (3).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 | 5 August 2009

ON 5 AUGUST 2009, the High Court of Australia delivered Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 (5 August 2009).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/27.html

In Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University, the Australian National University on day three of a four week hearing was granted an adjournment to make significant amendments to their statement of claim against their insurance broker. The ACT Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of the decision except in relation to costs. The High Court of Australia allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and sending the matter back to the ACT Supreme Court for directions towards final determination.

The High Court considered its earlier decision of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146; (1997) 141 ALR 353; (1997) 71 ALJR 294 (14 January 1997) in the light of how it had been applied by the courts across Australia.

JL Holdings contains the often quoted passage regarding case management:

“Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of a court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim.”

Queensland v JL Holdings had come to be an authority for the propositions that (1) doing justice between the parties is paramount to the court’s use of discretion when determining an application for leave to amend  (2)case management principles should not limit a court’s discretion when considering such applications and (3) an application for leave to amend should be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to payment of costs by way of compensation.

The majority in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ) at [111-113] held that applications for leave to amend should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to costs as compensation.

The majority also held that the statements made in Queensland v JL Holdings regarding the limiting of case management principles should not be applied in the future.

French CJ at [30] added that to ignore the concerns of case management would be to ignore the facts of undue delay, wasted costs, strain and uncertainty and erode public confidence in the legal system.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 | 14 July 1998

ON 14 JULY 1998, the Federal Court of Australia delivered White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 (14 July 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/806.html

Flower & Hart (a firm of lawyers) was ordered to pay the legal costs of White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd who had been sued by Flower & Hart’s client, Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, fraud and negligence had been brought by Caboolture Park for the ulterior purpose of delaying payment of monies due under a building contract. The solicitor for Caboolture Park, Michael Meadows, held the view that the proceedings did not have any prospects or any substantial prospects of success but nevertheless advised his client to proceed in order to secure a bargaining position against White Industries.

Goldberg held that:

  • the proceedings were not brought for a legitimate purpose of vindicating a right but rather, they had no prospects of success and were brought to postpone or delay the ultimate determination of the legitimate claim of White Industries.
  • it was unreasonable to make the allegations in circumstances where there was no factual basis and no consideration was given as to whether or not there was a factual basis.
  • it was unreasonable for the solicitors to initiate and continue the proceedings as they amounted to an abuse of process and oppressive conduct.
  • it was unreasonable for the solicitor to shelter behind the advice of counsel, Ian Callinan QC.

As the impetus came from the solicitor, his Honour ordered that they pay the legal costs of White Industries, on an indemnity basis.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

Westpac Banking Corporation v Channel 8 Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2014] NSWSC 912

ON 8 JULY 2014, the NSW Supreme Court delivered Westpac Banking Corporation v Channel 8 Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 912.

http://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/action/PJUDG?jgmtid=172576

The court extended a reference for pro bono assistance to the defendant for the preparation and conduct of the hearing as the defences pleaded involve some degree of technicality and require legal knowledge.

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088

National Australia Bank Ltd v Kamboj [2014] NSWSC 865

ON 27 JUNE 2014, the Supreme Court of NSW delivered National Australia Bank Ltd v Kamboj [2014] NSWSC 865 (27 June 2014).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/nsw/NSWSC/2014/865.html

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27

ON 5 AUGUST 2009, the High Court of Australia delivered Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 (5 August 2009).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/27.html

In Aon Risk, the Australian National University on day three of a four week hearing was granted an adjournment to make significant amendments to their statement of claim against their insurance broker. The ACT Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of the decision except in relation to costs. The High Court of Australia allowed an appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal’s decision and sending the matter back to the ACT Supreme Court for directions towards final determination.

The High Court considered its earlier decision of Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146; (1997) 141 ALR 353; (1997) 71 ALJR 294 (14 January 1997) in the light of how it had been applied by the courts across Australia.

JL Holdings contains the often quoted passage regarding case management:

“Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of a court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim.”

Queensland v JL Holdings had come to be an authority for the propositions that (1) doing justice between the parties is paramount to the court’s use of discretion when determining an application for leave to amend  (2)case management principles should not limit a court’s discretion when considering such applications and (3) an application for leave to amend should be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to payment of costs by way of compensation.

The majority in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ) at [111-113] held that applications for leave to amend should not be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to costs as compensation.

The majority also held that the statements made in Queensland v JL Holdings regarding the limiting of case management principles should not be applied in the future.

French CJ at [30] added that to ignore the concerns of case management would be to ignore the facts of undue delay, wasted costs, strain and uncertainty and erode public confidence in the legal system.

Lawyers 1300 00 2088

White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806

ON 14 JULY 1998, the Federal Court of Australia delivered White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Flower & Hart (a firm) [1998] FCA 806 (14 July 1998).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/1998/806.html

Flower & Hart (a firm of lawyers) was ordered to pay the legal costs of White Industries (Qld) Pty Ltd who had been sued by Flower & Hart’s client, Caboolture Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (in liquidation).

Proceedings alleging misleading and deceptive conduct, fraud and negligence had been brought by Caboolture Park for the ulterior purpose of delaying payment of monies due under a building contract. The solicitor for Caboolture Park, Michael Meadows, held the view that the proceedings did not have any prospects or any substantial prospects of success but nevertheless advised his client to proceed in order to secure a bargaining position against White Industries.

Goldberg held that:

Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1

ON 14 JANUARY 1997, the High Court of Australia delivered Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1; (1997) 189 CLR 146; (1997) 141 ALR 353; (1997) 71 ALJR 294 (14 January 1997).

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1997/1.html

Per Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ (at 154):

“Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation. But it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of the court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim.”

The decision has since been used as an authority for the propositions that (1) doing justice between the parties is paramount to the court’s use of discretion when determining an application for leave to amend (2) case management principles should not limit a court’s discretion when considering such applications and (3) an application for leave to amend should be approached on the basis that a party is entitled to raise an arguable claim subject to payment of costs by way of compensation.  Since the High Court’s 2007 decision in Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2009/27.html, JL Holdings no longer is authority for propositions (2) and (3).

Lawyers

Sydney, Australia

1300 00 2088