Bisnovaty v Matchland Pty Ltd - [2019] QCA 241

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bisnovaty v Matchland Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 241

PARTIES:

VYACHESLAV BISNOVATY
(appellant)
v
MATCHLAND PTY LTD
ACN 052 101 176
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 168 of 2019
DC No 422 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 3 December 2018 (Reid DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Lyons SJA

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – WANT OF PROSECUTION OR LACK OF PROGRESS – where the appellant filed a claim for damages for negligence or breach of contract in February 2013 – where liability was admitted but all or the most substantial part of the quantum of the claim was in issue – where the appellant failed to comply with court orders made in March 2017 or to progress the litigation by November 2018 – where the appellant failed to comply with orders requiring his appearance before the District Court in December 2018 – where the appellant’s claim was struck out for want of prosecution – whether the order striking out the appellant’s claim was unreasonable or plainly unjust

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 280, r 374

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178, applied
Ward v Wiltshire Australia Pty Ltd & Anor[2008] QCA 93, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
J O McClymont for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the respondent

FRASER JA: The appellant filed a notice of appeal challenging an order made by Reid DCJ on 3 December 2018 that the appellant’s claim in the District Court against the respondent be struck out for want of prosecution.
On 23 May 2011 the appellant was injured whilst undertaking a task of his employment by the respondent. On 7 February 2013 he commenced a claim against the respondent in the District Court for damages for negligence or breach of contract for his injuries, described as L5/S1 central and left paracentral disc prolapse and consequential major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed and irritable mood. The major component of the claimed damages was future economic loss exceeding $490,000.
On 10 April 2013 the respondent filed a defence in which it: admitted liability for the appellant’s personal injuries; denied the appellant’s description of the injury; contended that the injury was an aggravation of the pre-existing L5/S1 disc protrusion/degeneration; denied that this injury caused any psychiatric injury; admitted that as a consequence of the back injury, combined with long term unemployment and family conflict, the appellant sustained an adjustment disorder and has depressed and irritable mood; and denied that the appellant had a major depressive disorder as a result of…

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 Bisnovaty v Matchland 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: [2019] QCA 241
Decision Date: 5 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bisnovaty v Matchland Pty Ltd involved the appellant, Bisnovaty, who filed a claim for damages against Matchland Pty Ltd in February 2013. The claim was premised on allegations of negligence or breach of contract, with liability admitted but the quantum of the claim being contested. The proceedings were subject to various court orders, particularly those pertaining to the progression of the case and compliance with court directives. In March 2017, specific orders were made, which the appellant failed to comply with, leading to further orders in November 2018 that also went unmet. Additionally, the appellant did not appear as required before the District Court in December 2018, resulting in the striking out of his claim for want of prosecution.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the order striking out the appellant's claim was unreasonable or plainly unjust. The appellant argued that the order was harsh and unjust, considering his reasons for non-compliance were due to personal circumstances and misunderstandings. The court was tasked with determining whether the District Court judge had acted within the scope of judicial discretion in dismissing the claim and whether the outcome was justified under the circumstances.

The court examined the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders and the lack of progress in the litigation. It found that the appellant's failure to comply with the court's directives, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so, justified the District Court's decision. The court held that the order was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust, as it was a necessary measure to ensure the efficient administration of justice and to prevent the further wasting of court resources. The appellant's arguments did not sufficiently mitigate the persistent disregard for the court's orders.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent, Matchland Pty Ltd. The court upheld the decision of the District Court, affirming that the striking out of the appellant's claim was a justified exercise of judicial discretion.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

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:	Bisnovaty v Matchland Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 241
PARTIES:	VYACHESLAV BISNOVATY (appellant) v MATCHLAND PTY LTD ACN 052 101 176 (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 168 of 2019 DC No 422 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Unreported, 3 December 2018 (Reid DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Lyons SJA
ORDER:	The appeal is dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – COURT SUPERVISION – WANT OF PROSECUTION OR LACK OF PROGRESS – where the appellant filed a claim for damages for negligence or breach of contract in February 2013 – where liability was admitted but all or the most substantial part of the quantum of the claim was in issue – where the appellant failed to comply with court orders made in March 2017 or to progress the litigation by November 2018 – where the appellant failed to comply with orders requiring his appearance before the District Court in December 2018 – where the appellant’s claim was struck out for want of prosecution – whether the order striking out the appellant’s claim was unreasonable or plainly unjust Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 280, r 374 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Tyler v Custom Credit Corporation Ltd & Ors [2000] QCA 178, applied Ward v Wiltshire Australia Pty Ltd & Anor[2008] QCA 93, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf J O McClymont for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Jensen McConaghy Lawyers for the respondent