Allstate Exploration NL v Ryan - [2008] TASSC 79

[2008] TASSC 79

CITATION: Allstate Exploration NL v Ryan [2008] TASSC 79

PARTIES:  ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL
  (ACN 000 679 023)
  MATTHEWS, William Harry Carne
  MATTHEWS, Lidia Joan
  v
  RYAN, Michael
  WOODINGS, Antony

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  218/2008
DELIVERED ON:  10 December 2008
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  27 November 2008
JUDGMENT OF:  Tennent J
CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Supreme Court procedure – Tasmania – Practice under Rules of Court – Commencement of proceedings: originating process – Renewal of writ – Application out of time.

Supreme Court Rules2000 (Tas), rr52, 107 and 168.
Corporations Act2001 (Cth), s237.
Rich v Long [2008] NSWSC 487; Bond v Tasmania [2003] TASSC 35; Verdich v McKechnie [1981] Tas R 91; South Johnstone Mill Ltd v Dennis and Scales (2007) 163 FCR 343; National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited v Victor Huddlestone and Michael Taylor [1997] TASSC 72, referred to.
Aust Dig Procedure [266]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  M B J Lee
             Respondent:  No appearance
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  PWB Lawyers as agents for Piper Alderman

Judgment Number: [2008] TASSC 79
Number of paragraphs: 27

Serial No 79/2008
File No 218/2008

ALLSTATE EXPLORATIONS NL (ACN 000 679 023),
WILLIAM HARRY CARNE MATTHEWS and LIDIA JOAN MATTHEWS
v MICHAEL RYAN and ANTONY WOODINGS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TENNENT J

10 December 2008

On 19 March 2008, a writ was filed in this Court by which Allstate Explorations NL and William Harry Carne Matthews ("Matthews") and Lidia Joan Matthews as plaintiffs, sought relief from Michael Ryan and Antony Woodings as defendants. The statement of claim attached to the writ comprised 88 paragraphs and substantially dealt with issues of negligent misrepresentation. The writ has not been served. Matthews and his wife were at all relevant times shareholders in Allstate. The writ incorporated claims by Matthews on behalf of Allstate, and claims on behalf of he and his wife personally.

On the same day, an originating process was also filed with the Court. That application was filed on behalf of Matthews. By it, he sought leave pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Act"), s237, to pursue on Allstate's behalf that part of the claim contained in the writ which he sought to bring on behalf of Allstate ("the s237 application"). Without leave, the proceedings commenced by the writ, insofar as they purported to have been commenced by Matthews on behalf of Allstate, could not proceed. That application has not to date been heard.

The Supreme Court Rules 2000 ("the Rules"), r107, provides that a writ remains in force for a period of six months commencing on, and including, the date of its issue. The same rule permits a plaintiff to apply to the court to renew the writ provided that the defendant has not been served, and further provides that any such application is to be brought prior to the date upon which the writ becomes stale. In the present case, the writ ceased to be in force on…

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 Allstate Exploration NL v Ryan

Details

AGLC: Allstate Exploration NL v Ryan [2008] TASSC 79
Case: [2008] TASSC 79
Decision Date: 10 December 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Allstate Exploration NL v Ryan, the plaintiff, Allstate Exploration NL, sought to renew a writ that had been issued for proceedings in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The defendant, Ryan, opposed the renewal, arguing that the plaintiff had not acted within the stipulated time frames as required by the rules of court. The dispute centred around the procedural aspects of commencing legal action under the Rules of Court in Tasmania.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's application for the renewal of the writ was made within the permissible time limits, and if not, whether any exceptional circumstances justified an extension of that time. The court had to consider the strict procedural requirements set out in the Supreme Court Rules and whether there were grounds to excuse the plaintiff's delay.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules and found that the plaintiff's application for renewal was indeed out of time. The plaintiff did not provide sufficient justification or evidence to support a claim for an extension beyond the stipulated period. The court noted that procedural rules are essential to maintaining the efficiency and fairness of the legal system, and deviations from these rules must be justified by compelling circumstances. In this instance, the plaintiff had not provided such justification. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to renew the writ.

As a result of the court's decision, the writ was not renewed, effectively concluding Allstate Exploration NL's attempt to proceed with the legal action against Ryan. The court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the stringent nature of the court's approach to applications that seek to circumvent these rules.

Orders