Black v Rafa Pastoral Pty Ltd - [2013] VSC 317

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL AND EQUITY DIVISION

PRACTICE COURT

S CI 1991 6154

ROBERT JOHN BLACK	Plaintiff/Respondent
v
RAFA PASTORAL PTY LTD & ORS (According to the schedule annexed)	Defendants/Appellants

---

JUDGE:	HARGRAVE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21, 22, 24 May, 5 June 2013 (final written submissions filed)
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 June 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Black v Rafa Pastoral Pty Ltd & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 317

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Self-executing order – Whether ambiguous order – Whether order under ‘slip rule’ correcting error in self-executing order should be set aside - Whether proceeding dismissed for non-compliance – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 rr 36.07, 46.08 – L Shaddock & Associates Pty Ltd v Parramatta City Council (No 2) (1982) 151 CLR 590; Elson v Ayton (2010) 241 FLR 178; Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 571 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff/Respondent	Mr T Mullen (Duty Barristers Scheme)
For the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants/Appellants	Mr L Glick SC with Mr A Segal	Turks Legal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 2

Was the self-executing order sufficiently clear?........................................................................... 3

Should the slip rule order be set aside?......................................................................................... 6

Should the self-executing order be set aside?............................................................................... 9

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 10

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, Robert Black, claims relief from the Court in relation to alleged misappropriations of land and other property which were the assets of a family farming enterprise. He alleges that the primary culprit was his deceased brother, Gary Black. The proceeding is defended by Messrs Andrew Yeo and Giuseppe Rambaldi, in their capacity as liquidators of the first defendant and as trustees of the bankrupt deceased estate of Gary Black. The third defendant is Gary Black’s ex-wife, Judith Black.

The proceeding was commenced about 22 years ago in 1991. The extraordinary delay in bringing the proceeding to trial reflects badly on all of the parties and, indeed, the Court. As other judges have justifiably commented in the course of recent interlocutory applications, the proceeding has been running for an ‘outrageous’ time.[1]
[1]Per Bell J, 19 December 2011; per Hollingworth J, 26 June 2012.

The plaintiff represented himself from about 2000 until he received assistance from the Duty Barristers Scheme for the purposes of the application giving rise to the appeal before the Court and for the hearing of that appeal. The Court expresses its gratitude to Mr Mullen, who appeared in that capacity. His submissions were of great assistance to the Court.

The issues before the Court arise from the plaintiff’s failure to comply with a self-executing order made by Daly AsJ on 12 June 2012. The self-executing order required the plaintiff to file and serve his outline of evidence within a specified time, and provided that the proceeding would be dismissed if he did not comply with that requirement. Daly AsJ recorded in ‘OTHER MATTERS’ that:

This Court considers that given the age and…

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 Black v Rafa Pastoral 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: [2013] VSC 317
Decision Date: 21 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Black v Rafa Pastoral Pty Ltd involved a dispute over the interpretation of a self-executing order in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Black, sought to enforce an order that had been issued by the court, while the defendant, Rafa Pastoral Pty Ltd, argued that the order was ambiguous and should be corrected under the "slip rule." The case hinged on whether the court should set aside the order correcting an error in a self-executing order, and whether the proceeding should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the order under consideration was ambiguous, and if so, whether it could be corrected under the "slip rule." The court also had to determine whether the proceeding should be dismissed for non-compliance with procedural rules. These issues required the court to balance the principles of finality in court orders with the need to correct errors and ensure procedural fairness.

The court found that the order was indeed ambiguous, but declined to set it aside under the "slip rule." The court reasoned that allowing such an order to stand would undermine the principle of finality in judicial decisions. The court held that while the "slip rule" can be applied to correct errors, it should be used sparingly and only in cases where the error is clear and unambiguous. The court also found that the proceeding should not be dismissed for non-compliance, as the defendant had not been prejudiced by the plaintiff's actions. The court ultimately granted the plaintiff's application, with specific directions for the enforcement of the order.

The final orders of the court were that the order correcting the error in the self-executing order would stand, and that the proceeding would not be dismissed for non-compliance. The court provided detailed directions for the enforcement of the order, ensuring that both parties understood their obligations moving forward.

Orders