Baker v Hallett - [2004] QSC 132

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Baker v Hallett; Baker v Pattison; Baker v James [2004] QSC 132

PARTIES:

MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER
(plaintiff)
v
MARK WILLIAM HALLETT
(defendant)

MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER
(plaintiff)
v
JOHN JOSEPH PATTISON
(defendant)

MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER
(plaintiff)
v
SHARYN JAMES
(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 1188 of 1994
SC No 1185 of 1994
SC No 1187 of 1994

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application – Leave to Proceed & Leave to Amend Summons

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 March 2004

JUDGE:

Holmes J

ORDERS:

The plaintiff has leave to proceed against the defendants in actions numbers 1185/94, 1187/94 and 1188/94; 1.

The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1185/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.2.

The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1188/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.3.

The application for leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1187/94 is dismissed.4.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the plaintiff commenced proceedings against his former partner in 1994 for wrongful distribution of moneys held in trust – where trust money had been paid to the current defendants under the distribution of the fund – where the plaintiff now alleges that the current defendants conspired with his former partner to wrongfully deprive the plaintiff of his entitlement under the fund – whether leave to proceed against the current defendants pursuant to r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 should be granted

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT – AMENDMENT – where the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the writ of summons so as to allege that the defendants conspired in respect to the wrongful distribution of the trust – whether leave to amend the writ of summons pursuant to rr 375–377 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 should be granted

Justice and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (Qld), s 67
Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6(b)
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 27(2), s 38(1Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 81
Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 109
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 375, r 376, r 377, r 389

Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, considered
Draney v Barry [2002] 1 Qd R 145, applied
King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, applied

Kitchen v Royal…

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 Baker v Hallett

Details

AGLC: Baker v Hallett [2004] QSC 132
Case: [2004] QSC 132
Decision Date: 7 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Baker v Hallett involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Baker, and two sets of defendants, his former partner and other parties, regarding the wrongful distribution of moneys held in trust. The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court. Baker originally commenced proceedings in 1994 against his former partner for the wrongful distribution of trust moneys. He now alleges that the current defendants conspired with his former partner to deprive him of his entitlement under the trust. The central legal issues were whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to proceed against the current defendants under rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, and whether he should be granted leave to amend the writ of summons to allege conspiracy regarding the wrongful distribution.

The court considered the delay since the last proceeding and the merits of granting leave to proceed and amend. The court acknowledged the significant delay in bringing the claims against the current defendants but found that exceptional circumstances justified the grant of leave. The court also considered the plaintiff's ability to amend the writ of summons to include the conspiracy allegations. The court allowed the amendments in two of the actions, finding that the amendments related back to the original writ of summons and did not prejudice the defendants. However, the application for leave to amend the writ of summons in one action was dismissed due to the late timing of the application and the potential prejudice to the defendants.

The final orders of the court were to grant the plaintiff leave to proceed against the defendants in three actions, to allow amendments to the writ of summons in two of those actions, and to dismiss the application for leave to amend in one action. These orders reflect the court's balanced approach to the procedural issues, considering both the delay and the potential prejudice to the defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

The plaintiff has leave to proceed against the defendants in actions numbers 1185/94, 1187/94 and 1188/94; 1.

The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1185/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.2.

The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1188/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.3.

The application for leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1187/94 is dismissed.4.

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:	Baker v Hallett; Baker v Pattison; Baker v James [2004] QSC 132
PARTIES:	MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER (plaintiff) v MARK WILLIAM HALLETT (defendant) MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER (plaintiff) v JOHN JOSEPH PATTISON (defendant) MICHAEL VINCENT BAKER (plaintiff) v SHARYN JAMES (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 1188 of 1994 SC No 1185 of 1994 SC No 1187 of 1994
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application – Leave to Proceed & Leave to Amend Summons
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 March 2004
JUDGE:	Holmes J
ORDERS:	The plaintiff has leave to proceed against the defendants in actions numbers 1185/94, 1187/94 and 1188/94; 1. The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1185/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.2. The plaintiff has leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1188/94 in terms of the relief claimed in the document headed “Amended Claim” which is annexure ECPE4 to the affidavit of Edward Campbell Patrick Earl filed in that proceeding on 26 November 2003.3. The application for leave to amend the writ of summons in action number 1187/94 is dismissed.4.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT – TIME – DELAY SINCE LAST PROCEEDING – where the plaintiff commenced proceedings against his former partner in 1994 for wrongful distribution of moneys held in trust – where trust money had been paid to the current defendants under the distribution of the fund – where the plaintiff now alleges that the current defendants conspired with his former partner to wrongfully deprive the plaintiff of his entitlement under the fund – whether leave to proceed against the current defendants pursuant to r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 should be granted PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER THE RULES OF COURT – AMENDMENT – where the plaintiff seeks leave to amend the writ of summons so as to allege that the defendants conspired in respect to the wrongful distribution of the trust – whether leave to amend the writ of summons pursuant to rr 375–377 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 should be granted Justice and Other Legislation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002 (Qld), s 67 Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld), s 6(b) Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 27(2), s 38(1Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 81 Trusts Act 1973 (Qld), s 109 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 375, r 376, r 377, r 389 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, considered Draney v Barry [2002] 1 Qd R 145, applied King v Victor Parsons & Co [1973] 1 WLR 29, applied Kitchen v Royal…