Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates - [1999] WASCA 139

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: BRIGGS -v- CURTIS QUICK & ASSOCIATES [1999] WASCA 139

CORAM: PIDGEON J
ANDERSON J
PARKER J

HEARD: 11 JUNE 1999

DELIVERED : 20 AUGUST 1999

FILE NO/S: FUL 38 of 1999

BETWEEN: PETER BRIGGS
Applicant
AND
CURTIS QUICK & ASSOCIATES
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Pleadings - Statement of claim - Amendments - Whether amendments should be allowed - Principles

Legislation:

Supreme Court Rules O 20 r8(1)

Corporations Law s 60(1)(b)

Result:

Leave to appeal granted

Appeal allowed in part

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Mr W S Martin QC & Mr D J Bishop
Respondent: Mr E M Heenan QC & Mr K G Robson

Solicitors:

Applicant: Clayton Utz
Respondent: Evangel Taylor

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

Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980141; 13 March 1998
Turquand v Fearon (1879) 48 LJQB 703

Case(s) also cited:

Curtis Quick & Associates v Briggs, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970598; 10 November 1997
Curtis Quick & Associates v Briggs, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990129; 16 March 1999
Jingellic Minerals NL v Abigroup Ltd (1992) 7 WAR 566
Tony Sadler Pty Ltd v McLeod Nominees Pty Ltd (1994) 13 WAR 323
Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd (1996-1997) 189 CLR 146

PIDGEON J: I agree with the reasons to be published by Anderson J and with the orders proposed.
ANDERSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of Master Sanderson granting the plaintiff respondent leave to reamend its statement of claim.
The action was begun by writ issued out of the District Court on 8 December 1992. The action was removed to the Supreme Court in 1994.
For present purposes, the facts which are contended for by the plaintiff can be taken to be as follows.
In May 1995, one Quick had a proposal for the construction of a videotape manufacturing plant in Perth. He needed capital and reached an agreement with the defendant Briggs, the terms of which were that he would disclose details of the development proposal to Briggs to enable Briggs to participate in and finance the development. It was a term of the agreement that Briggs would not disclose any of the details of the proposed development. In breach of the agreement, Briggs disclosed details of the proposed development to one Connell, who then used the information to develop a videotape manufacturing plant at O'Connor. This led to the plaintiff (for whom Mr Quick had been acting) making claims against Briggs. These claims were compromised by an agreement between the plaintiff and Briggs made on 23 February 1987. Pursuant to that agreement, Briggs became obliged to pay the plaintiff $290,000 and he has not paid it.
It is that cause of action which is sought to be pleaded. In order to understand the issues in this appeal, it is necessary to examine the evolution 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.

Continue reading Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates

Details

AGLC: Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates [1999] WASCA 139
Case: [1999] WASCA 139
Decision Date: 20 AUGUST 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Briggs v Curtis Quick & Associates case involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Briggs, and the defendant, Curtis Quick & Associates, regarding a statement of claim and the potential for amendments. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend their statement of claim to include additional claims, despite the passage of time and the defendant's potential prejudice.

The court considered the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, focusing on the balance between the right of a party to amend their pleadings and the need to protect the opposing party from undue delay and surprise. The court examined the circumstances in which amendments are permissible, including situations where the amendment would not prejudice the opposing party or where the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. The court also considered the timeliness of the application for leave to amend and whether there were any circumstances that warranted an exception to the usual rules.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the principles guiding the amendment of pleadings must be applied flexibly, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case. The court found that, in this instance, the plaintiff's application for leave to amend the statement of claim should be granted, as the proposed amendments were not likely to cause significant prejudice to the defendant and were in the interests of justice. The court emphasised the importance of resolving disputes on their merits and ensuring that procedural rules do not become an obstacle to achieving that goal. The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend their statement of claim, allowing the case to proceed on its merits.

Orders