Local Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: AGL Energy Ltd v Hammond; Hammond v AGL Energy Ltd [2015] NSWLC 15 Hearing dates: 23 June 2015 Decision date: 08 July 2015 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Buscombe LCM Decision:
In so far as the first respondent is concerned, the amended statement of claim is struck out;
In so far as the second respondent is concerned, in so far as her claim is brought in negligence, the amended statement of claim is struck out; and
In so far as the notice motion to strike out the amended statement of claim is concerned, there is to be an order that the first respondent is to pay one half of the applicants’ costs on the ordinary basis. In so far as between the applicants and the second respondent, there is no order as to costs. The applicants succeeded completely against the first respondent and partially against the second respondent. I consider in these circumstances that a proper exercise of the costs discretion results in the above costs order.
Catchwords: NOTICE OF MOTION - strike out application - whether statement of claim disclosed reasonable cause of action - breach of privacy - negligence - stay application upon provision of security for costs - application to set aside subpoena for production - whether issuing of subpoena constituted abuse of process Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), ss 31, 32, 67
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth), ss 90B, 91B
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 156
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 14.28, 36.3, 42.21Cases Cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; 208 CLR 199
Florida Investments Pty Ltd v Milstern (Holdings) Pty Ltd [1972] WAR 148
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; 112 CLR 125
Maynes v Casey [2011] NSWCA 156
Maynes v Casey [2011] HCASL 173
Philips Electronics Australia Pty Ltd v Matthews [2002] NSWCA 157; 54 NSWLR 598
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; 241 CLR 118
Transocean Capital Pty Ltd v AFSIG Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 806Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: AGL Energy Ltd (first applicant/defendant)
Patrick Hammond (first respondent/plaintiff)
Midstate Creditcollect Pty Ltd (second applicant/defendant)
Tracie Hammond (second respondent/plaintiff)Representation: Counsel:
Mr Davis (for the applicants/defendants)Solicitors:
First respondent/plaintiff in person
MCC Legal (for the applicants/defendants)
Second respondent/plaintiff in person
File Number(s): 2013/334830 Publication restriction: Nil
judgment
-
On 23 June 2015 I heard two notices of motion concerning these proceedings while on circuit at Katoomba. Argument concluded at 4.10 pm and I reserved my decisions and indicated I would arrange for either the presiding magistrate or the registrar to hand down my written decision on 8 July 2015 pursuant to r 36.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”).
-
One notice of motion by the applicants, the defendants in these proceedings, was to strike…
Continue reading AGL Energy Ltd v Hammond; Hammond v AGL Energy Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- AGL Energy Ltd v Hammond; Hammond v AGL Energy Ltd [2015] NSWLC 15
- Case
- [2015] NSWLC 15
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined whether the Respondents' amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action. In relation to Mr. Hammond's claim, the Court found that the amended statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was therefore struck out. Regarding Ms. Hammond's claim, the Court determined that while the claim for breach of privacy was adequately disclosed, the negligence claim was not. Consequently, the negligence claim was struck out, but the claim for breach of privacy remained. The Court also found that the issuing of the subpoena for production was not an abuse of process and declined to set it aside. The stay application was denied as the Applicants failed to provide adequate security for costs.
The Court ordered that the amended statement of claim brought by Mr. Hammond be struck out entirely, and that the negligence claim brought by Ms. Hammond be struck out. However, her claim for breach of privacy remained. The Applicants were successful against both Respondents, leading to a partial costs order. Mr. Hammond was ordered to pay half of the Applicants' costs, while no costs order was made between the Applicants and Ms. Hammond.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
In so far as the first respondent is concerned, the amended statement of claim is struck out;
2.
In so far as the second respondent is concerned, in so far as her claim is brought in negligence, the amended statement of claim is struck out; and
3.
In so far as the notice motion to strike out the amended statement of claim is concerned, there is to be an order that the first respondent is to pay one half of the applicants’ costs on the ordinary basis. In so far as between the applicants and the second respondent, there is no order as to costs. The applicants succeeded completely against the first respondent and partially against the second respondent. I consider in these circumstances that a proper exercise of the costs discretion results in the above costs order.
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.