Burke v Hampton - [2011] QDC 95

[2011] QDC 95

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 3153 of 2010

DOMINIC BURKE

Plaintiff

and

WENDY HAMPTON

and

AQIS/MAFF

Defendants

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/05/2011

ORDER

CATCHWORDS

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 146, r 171

Statement of claim of self-represented plaintiff struck out - impossibility of understanding his case - rules of pleadings ought to be complied with to a greater extent - leave to replead

HIS HONOUR: The court orders:

That the statement of claim filed on the 1st of November 2010 and the amended statement of claimed filed on the 26th of November 2010 be struck out pursuant to rule 171.

That the plaintiff have leave to replead consistently with rules 146 and following on or before 30th of June 2011.

That the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of their application to strike out to be assessed if not agreed.

That the title of the proceeding be changed to show the second defendant as the Commonwealth of Australia through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

The plaintiff is aggrieved on account of the termination of his employment as a baggage inspector at Brisbane Airport. The circumstances of the termination are contentious. He takes the line that departmental investigations for practical purposes cleared him and that his termination was based on a psychiatrist's or psychologist's report which, in turn, was founded on untrue and defamatory statements made by the first defendant in particular about him.

The defendants complained about the original statement of claim and in consequence of that Mr Burke voluntarily produced a document amended "under rule 378 UCPR" which added additional material to the original, for example, by adding to the complaints about information that Ms Hampton supplied to the psychiatrist that it was provided negligently. It's also suggested now that the Department was negligent and breached its statutory duty in actions regarding him "as they thought they were above the law."

New paragraphs were added complaining of harassment "through actual offensive language and shouting by Rick Hawe and supported by Cheryl Valerious." Those persons named are not parties. The new complaints extend to others such as an officer in Canberra described as their protector. There are new complaints of conspiracy.

Mr Merrell appearing for the applicant has provided a comprehensive and helpful outline of argument which, by citation of authorities, amply establishes that notwithstanding the indulgence that one would expect to be granted to self-represented litigants like Mr Burke in respect of rather technical tasks such as pleading, the other parties are entitled to the advantages which the rules are there to provide for them in the form of a pleading which can feasibly be responded to. See du Boulay v Ivor Worrell [2009] QCA 63 at paragraphs 69 and 72.

Reference is also made to decisions of White J making the point that the defendant cannot be expected to intuit what a plaintiff intends to convey in pleadings - see Thiess Pty Ltd v FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 209 at…

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 Burke v Hampton

Details

AGLC: Dominic Burke and Wendy Hampton v Aqis/Maff [2011] QDC 95
Case: [2011] QDC 95
Decision Date: 19 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burke v Hampton involved the self-represented plaintiff, Mr Burke, bringing a claim against the defendant, Mr Hampton, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute was unclear as the plaintiff's statement of claim was difficult to understand, leading to its striking out. The plaintiff's lack of legal representation and the complexity of his pleadings presented significant challenges to the court's ability to comprehend the basis of the claim. The court had to determine whether the statement of claim was sufficiently clear and precise to warrant a response from the defendant and whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his pleadings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim met the necessary standards of clarity and precision as required by the court rules. The court considered whether it was possible to ascertain the plaintiff's case from the statement of claim and whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to replead to clarify the allegations. The court emphasised the importance of complying with the rules of pleadings, particularly for self-represented litigants, to ensure that the judicial process is not unduly prolonged or frustrated.

The court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was so unclear and unintelligible that it was impossible to understand the nature of the plaintiff's case. Despite the court's efforts to assist the plaintiff in clarifying his claims, it was determined that the plaintiff was unable to provide a comprehensible statement of claim. The court highlighted the necessity of adhering to the rules of pleadings, especially for unrepresented parties, to facilitate a fair and efficient judicial process. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff leave to replead, providing an opportunity for the plaintiff to articulate his claims more clearly and precisely. The court's decision underscored the importance of ensuring that all parties comply with the procedural requirements of the court to avoid unnecessary delays and to ensure that cases are decided on their merits.

Orders