Bidas v Redink Homes Pty Ltd - [2025] WADC 21

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   BIDAS -v- REDINK HOMES PTY LTD [2025] WADC 21
CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN
HEARD:   11 FEBRUARY 2025
DELIVERED          :   9 APRIL 2025
FILE NO/S:   CIV 4806 of 2024
BETWEEN:   JAN BIDAS
Plaintiff
AND
REDINK HOMES PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Application to strike out statement of claim - Plaintiff unrepresented - Approach to be adopted where party is unrepresented - Lack of jurisdiction asserted - Whether jurisdictional objection raises a pleadings point - Principles to be applied - Pleadings rolled up and inadequate - Leave to re-plead - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 19(1)

Result:

Application allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	Ms A Sultana

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendant	:	Lavan

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

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Lewis v Garvey [2017] WADC 76
McGavin v McGavin [2024] WASC 408
Northern Territory of Australia v John Holland Pty Ltd (formerly known as John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd) [2008] NTSC 4
Nyoni v Patterson [2012] WASCA 171
Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd [2022] FCA 1166
Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Gates [2018] WASC 213
Re Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA); Ex parte Ruba [2020] WASC 237
Snelgrove v Great Southern Managers Australia Ltd (in liq) (Receiver and Manager Appointed) [2011] WASC 103
Sutton Investments Pty Ltd v Realistic Investments Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 14
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MCGIVERN:

Mr Bidas is unrepresented. He has commenced an action against Redink Homes Pty Ltd (Redink). In broad terms, Mr Bidas alleges that Redink was contracted to build a home for him and, by failing to build that home, Redink has breached the contract and has caused him to suffer various losses.
Redink has applied[1] to strike out Mr Bidas's statement of claim,[2] on the grounds that:
(a)the District Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with the subject matter of the action (jurisdictional objection); and
(b)the plaintiff's pleadings are inadequate or improper (inadequacy objections).
[1] Pursuant to O 20 r 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC). In these reasons, any reference to a rule is a reference to the RSC unless otherwise specified.
[2] As outlined below, the application is taken to be an application to strike out the amended statement of claim filed on 11 December 2024.
In dealing with the application, I will consider the following issues:
(a)What version of the statement of claim is the application concerned with?
(b)What is…

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 Bidas v Redink Homes Pty Ltd 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: [2025] WADC 21
Decision Date: 9 APRIL 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Bidas v Redink Homes Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Bidas, was unrepresented and brought proceedings against Redink Homes Pty Ltd, a home construction company, concerning alleged breaches of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where Redink Homes made an application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. The primary issues before the court were whether the jurisdictional objection raised a point relating to pleadings, and if so, whether the principles applied to pleadings should be rolled up and if the statement of claim was inadequate, whether leave to re-plead should be granted.

The court considered the principles to be applied when dealing with pleadings, particularly in cases where a party is unrepresented. It was noted that when a party is unrepresented, courts should adopt a more lenient approach. The court examined whether the jurisdictional objection raised a point relating to pleadings. It concluded that jurisdictional objections do not necessarily raise pleadings points, but when they do, the principles applied to pleadings should be followed. In this instance, the court found that the jurisdictional objection did raise a pleadings point.

Further, the court assessed the adequacy of the plaintiff's statement of claim. It found that the pleadings were rolled up and inadequate as they failed to set out a cause of action in a clear and concise manner. However, the court considered whether leave to re-plead should be granted. It was noted that leave to re-plead is not automatically granted, and the decision turns on the facts of each case. In this instance, the court decided that leave to re-plead should not be granted.

The final orders of the court were that the application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim was successful. The court found that the jurisdictional objection raised a pleadings point, and the statement of claim was inadequate and not sufficiently clear and concise. Consequently, leave to re-plead was denied, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

Orders