Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm)

Artahs Pty Ltd brought an action against Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, alleging professional negligence. The case had been the subject of a mediation in September 2008, which did not result in a settlement. In June 2009, the court intervened in the proceedings by ordering the parties to complete disclosure and file a request for a trial date, with the caveat that if they did not, the matter would be deemed resolved. Despite the order, no further steps were taken and the matter was consequently deemed resolved in September 2009. The plaintiff subsequently attempted to serve an unsigned supplementary list of documents in May 2011, and sought leave under r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to take this step. The trial judge dismissed the application and struck out the proceeding. The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues in the case were whether the order made by the Trial Division judge on 19 June 2009, which had been prepared with the consent of the parties but initiated by a case flow management intervention notice, constituted a "step in the proceeding" for the purposes of r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The second issue was whether the primary judge erred in assessing the plaintiff's prospects of success as poor, such that leave to proceed should not have been refused. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in deciding not to grant leave to the plaintiff to take a further step in the proceeding.

The Court of Appeal held that the order made by the Trial Division judge was indeed a step in the proceeding for the purposes of r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The court found that the order was a significant procedural step that affected the progress of the case. The Court of Appeal further held that the primary judge erred in assessing the plaintiff's prospects of success as poor. The court held that the primary judge had not given proper consideration to the plaintiff's prospects of success and had instead focused on the delay in taking the step. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of 27 September 2011, and ordered that the plaintiff be granted leave under r 389(2) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) to take a further step in the proceeding. The plaintiff was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding at first instance.