4People Pty Ltd v Pocock - [2012] QDC 210

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

4People Pty Ltd v Pocock [2012] QDC 210

PARTIES:

4PEOPLE PTY LTD (ACN 108 047 383)
(Plaintiff/respondent)

v

GREGORY KEITH POCOCK
(Defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

BD2394/2011

DIVISION:

Applications

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

3 July 2012

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

Leave granted for withdrawal of deemed admissions to paragraph 29 of the statement of claim.

LEGISLATION

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 166 (1), (3), (4), (5), r 188

CASES

Barker v Linklater [2008] 1 Qd R 405.

Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159.

Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2008] QSC 302.

Elderslie Property Investments No 2 Pty Ltd v Dunn [2008] QCA 158.

Groves v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and Anor [2004] QSC 142.

Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21.

Robinson v Laws & Anor (2001) QCA 122.

Ridolfi v Rigato Farms [2001] 2 Qd R 455.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – PLEADING – DEFENCE – where the defendant applies for declarations in respect of deemed admissions purported by the respondent – where respondent contends that certain denials and non-admissions in the defence are defective because they do not contain a direct explanation for the defendant’s belief that the relevant allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted – whether defence fails to comply with r 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

PROCEDURE – PLEADING – DEFENCE - where the respondent applies alternatively for leave to withdraw any deemed admission pursuant to r 188 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

COUNSEL:

N.H. Ferrett with J Sheenan on behalf of the applicant.

P.A. Travis on behalf of the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

McKelvey & Hu Lawyers on behalf of the applicant.

Hopgood Ganim on behalf of the respondent.

Introduction

By application filed on 27 June 2012, the applicant, who is the defendant in existing proceedings before the court, applies for declarations as to the effect of the responses made to four aspects of the statement of claim in the existing proceedings and so as to clarify and avoid any consequence of deemed admission pursuant to the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”). Alternatively, the application is for leave to withdraw any such admissions, under UCPR 188.

In the existing proceedings before the Court, the respondent claims the following relief:

“1.Damages for breach of contract in the amount of $169,390.38;

2.Damages pursuant to s 82 of the Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth), or s 99 of the Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), in the amount of $155,092.84;

3.Compensation pursuant to s 87 of the Trade Practices Act 1974(Cth), or s 100 of the Fair Trading Act 1989(Qld), in the amount of $155,092.84; or

4. Equitable compensation in the amount of $330,428.57; and
5.An injunction pursuant to s 69(2) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967(Qld), restraining the defendant from:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading 4People Pty Ltd v Pocock

Details

AGLC: 4People Pty Ltd v Pocock [2012] QDC 210
Case: [2012] QDC 210
Decision Date: 10 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of 4People Pty Ltd v Pocock, the dispute revolved around the defendant's application for declarations concerning deemed admissions made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff, 4People Pty Ltd, sought to challenge certain denials and non-admissions in the defendant's defence, arguing that they were defective as they did not provide a direct explanation for the defendant's belief that the allegations were untrue or could not be admitted. This contention was made under the framework of rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The plaintiff also applied for leave to withdraw any deemed admission made by the defendant pursuant to rule 188 of the same rules.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the defendant's defence was compliant with the procedural rules, specifically in terms of the requirements for denials and non-admissions, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to withdraw any deemed admissions under the relevant rule. The court had to consider the specific wording and explanations provided by the defendant in their defence and determine if they met the necessary standards for procedural fairness and compliance with the rules.

The court, after thorough examination of the submissions and the procedural rules, found that the defence did indeed contain defects as per the plaintiff's contentions. The court held that the defendant's denials and non-admissions were insufficient as they did not sufficiently explain the basis for the defendant's position. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's application for leave to withdraw the deemed admissions to paragraph 29 of the statement of claim. This decision underscores the importance of precise and adequate explanations in legal pleadings to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the rules.

In conclusion, the court's decision highlighted the necessity for defendants to provide clear and direct explanations in their denials and non-admissions, in line with procedural rules. The court granted the plaintiff's application for withdrawal of the deemed admissions, ensuring that the proceedings would proceed with proper compliance with the rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

Leave granted for withdrawal of deemed admissions to paragraph 29 of the statement of claim.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	4People Pty Ltd v Pocock [2012] QDC 210
PARTIES:	4PEOPLE PTY LTD (ACN 108 047 383) (Plaintiff/respondent) v GREGORY KEITH POCOCK (Defendant/applicant)
FILE NO:	BD2394/2011
DIVISION:	Applications
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	3 July 2012
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	Leave granted for withdrawal of deemed admissions to paragraph 29 of the statement of claim.
LEGISLATION	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 166 (1), (3), (4), (5), r 188
CASES	Barker v Linklater [2008] 1 Qd R 405. Bowes v Chaleyer (1923) 32 CLR 159. Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2008] QSC 302. Elderslie Property Investments No 2 Pty Ltd v Dunn [2008] QCA 158. Groves v Australian Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union and Anor [2004] QSC 142. Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21. Robinson v Laws & Anor (2001) QCA 122. Ridolfi v Rigato Farms [2001] 2 Qd R 455.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – PLEADING – DEFENCE – where the defendant applies for declarations in respect of deemed admissions purported by the respondent – where respondent contends that certain denials and non-admissions in the defence are defective because they do not contain a direct explanation for the defendant’s belief that the relevant allegation is untrue or cannot be admitted – whether defence fails to comply with r 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). PROCEDURE – PLEADING – DEFENCE - where the respondent applies alternatively for leave to withdraw any deemed admission pursuant to r 188 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999
COUNSEL:	N.H. Ferrett with J Sheenan on behalf of the applicant. P.A. Travis on behalf of the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	McKelvey & Hu Lawyers on behalf of the applicant. Hopgood Ganim on behalf of the respondent.