Ahmed v Hoffmans (A Firm) - [2019] WADC 96

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   AHMED -v- HOFFMANS (A FIRM) [2019] WADC 96
CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT
HEARD:   11 JULY 2019
DELIVERED          :   25 JULY 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 1278 of 2019
BETWEEN:   FAYSAL YUSUF AHMED
Plaintiff
AND
HOFFMANS (A FIRM)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Adequacy of indorsement on writ - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 21 r 10(3)

Result:

Indorsement struck out

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr A Stewart
Defendant	:	Mr S Popperwell

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Premier Compensation Lawyers
Defendant	:	Popperwell & Co

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

ABB Service Pty Ltd (Formerly known as ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd) v Kenneth Sydney Hetherington and Julie Ann Hetherington [2001] WASCA 235
Watch Tower Bible Society and Tract Society of Australia v Sahas [2008] WASCA 51

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

On 4 April 2019 the plaintiff to this action filed a writ of summons against the defendant endorsed as follows:
THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM is for damages for losses caused to the Plaintiff in the form of a loss of opportunity and/or loss of chance as a result of the negligence and/or breach of contract and/or breach of statutory duty by the Defendant, its servants and/or agents on or about 10 April 2013.
On 23 April 2019 the defendant filed a conditional appearance and on 2 May 2019 filed a chambers summons seeking orders that:
1.Pursuant to O 6 r 1(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), the writ of summons dated 4 April 2019 be struck out and service be set aside.
2.The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed.
Order 6 r 1 Rules of the Supreme Court is in the following terms:
1. Nature of claim etc. to be indorsed on writ
(1)Before a writ is issued it must be indorsed with a concise statement of the nature of the claim made, and of the relief or remedy required in the action.
(2) In case of non-compliance with subrule (1) the defendant may apply before appearance to set aside or amend the writ or for particulars.
It is no doubt for that reason that a conditional appearance was filed on behalf of the defendant in order to allow the issue raised by the chamber summons to be aired and determined. Subsequently, the defendant filed an amended writ of summons dated 14 May 2019. The effect of that amendment was to delete the date 10 April 2013 and substitute 13 October 2012 and to add the following:
The claim relates to the defendant failing to properly advise and or protect the plaintiff's common law termination day as required under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 acknowledged for the purposes of s 47 of the Limitation Act 2005 in a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff dated 10 April 2013.
Although not expressed to be so presumably…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ahmed v Hoffmans (A Firm) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] WADC 96
Decision Date: 25 JULY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ahmed v Hoffmans (A Firm) was heard in the High Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Ahmed, brought the action against Hoffmans (A Firm), a legal firm, claiming professional negligence in their handling of a legal matter. The primary dispute centred around whether the writ of summons was adequately endorsed to include all necessary parties and claims, a question that would determine the validity of the proceeding. The Court of Appeal had previously ruled against Mr. Ahmed, finding the indorsement on the writ insufficient, and this ruling was the subject of the appeal before the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the indorsement on the writ was sufficient to include all claims and parties required for the proceeding to be valid. The court had to consider the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the claims and the necessity of the parties involved. The court also needed to determine whether there was any ambiguity in the indorsement that might have prejudiced Mr. Ahmed’s ability to adequately defend the proceeding.

The High Court held that the adequacy of the indorsement on the writ was a matter that depended on the specific facts of each case. In this instance, the court found that the indorsement was sufficient as it clearly outlined the claims and parties involved, and there was no evidence of ambiguity or prejudice to Mr. Ahmed. The Court emphasised that while the rules of procedure required clarity, they also allowed for some flexibility in interpreting the indorsement, particularly where the intent of the parties could be reasonably inferred. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld.

As a result of the court's decision, Hoffmans (A Firm) was not found liable for professional negligence as initially claimed by Mr. Ahmed. The Court's ruling confirmed the validity of the proceedings as initiated and the sufficiency of the writ's indorsement. The final order was that Mr. Ahmed's appeal be dismissed, and costs be awarded to Hoffmans (A Firm).

Orders