Butler v Crowley & Co

[1999] QSC 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT  

OF QUEENSLAND
  No 6521 of 1996
Brisbane

Before Mr Justice Muir

[Butler v Crowley & Co]

BETWEEN:

CLIVE GEORGE BUTLER

Plaintiff
AND:

CROWLEY & GREENHALGH         Solicitors

Formerly

LYN CROWLEY & COMPANY   Solicitors

Defendant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MUIR J

Judgment delivered 28 January 1999

CATCHWORDS:     PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - strike out application - failure of statement of claim to comply with Rules of the Supreme Court Order 22 rule 1. 

Counsel:Mr C.G. Butler, in person for the plaintiff

Mr R.M. Derrington for the defendant

Solicitors:Minter Ellison for the defendant

Hearing date:               19 January 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MUIR J

Judgment delivered 28 January 1999

1. This matter was heard together with the applications in actions 9292 of 1996 and 3735 of 1997, which I have identified in my reasons in 9292 of 1996.

2. The statement of claim the subject of this application is a further amended statement of claim delivered on 13 November 1998. The statement of claim, in broad terms, concerns complaints by the plaintiff against the defendant firm of solicitors in respect of two matters in which the defendant allegedly acted for the plaintiff -

   a.A claim by the plaintiff in the Supreme Court against one Tomik, which the defendant took over from another firm of solicitors.

   b.The administration of the estate of the plaintiff’s late mother which the defendant also took over from the same firm of solicitors.

   In the pleading the plaintiff relives in detail the course of the Tomik action and presents a long litany of disjointed complaints against the defendant and against solicitors who are not parties to the action. The part of the statement of claim dealing with the Tomik action could be described, broadly, as a chronological narrative. It does not attempt to relate allegations of conduct in the course of the action to allegations of breach of duty on the part of the defendant or to allege in any sensible form how the conduct complained of resulted in recoverable loss and damage. As in the case of the statement of claim in action 9292 of 1996, the pleading -

   a.contravenes the requirements of O 22 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court by failing to contain a statement, as brief as the nature of case will allow, setting out the material facts on which the plaintiff relies to support his claim;

   b.contravenes the requirements of O 22 r 1 by setting out evidence as well as material facts;

   c.contravenes the requirements of O 22 r 30 by containing unnecessary and also scandalous material;

   d.is unintelligible in parts and also repetitive, ambiguous and obscure;

   e.makes many allegations which do not appear to be linked to any allegations of breach of duty on the part of the defendant or to allegations which show or attempt to show that the matters alleged were causative of or even had bearing upon the loss and damage allegedly suffered by the plaintiff;

   f.contains many paragraphs which appear to be irrelevant and fail to disclose or support a reasonable cause of action.

3. For good measure, the plaintiff makes allegations of impropriety against three other firms of solicitors and the Law Society. None of these persons or entities, of course, are parties to the action.

4. The allegations in respect of the estate matter centre around alleged dilatory conduct by the defendant. As seems to be the pattern of the plaintiff’s allegations, he alleges that the defendant was guilty of impropriety, unprofessional conduct and unlawful collusion with other solicitors. Such serious allegations are not appropriately pleaded or particularised.

5. I will not attempt to further analyse the pleadings. The observations I made in 9292 of 1996 are generally applicable.

   Orders on the plaintiff’s summons

6. It is ordered that -

   1.The plaintiff’s summons be dismissed.

   2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the summons, to be taxed.

   Orders on the defendant’s summons

7. It is ordered that -

   1.The plaintiff’s amended statement of claim delivered on 13 November 1998 be struck out.

   2.The plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the application, to be taxed.

   3.The plaintiff have liberty to deliver a further amended statement of claim on or before 5 p.m. on Monday 8 March 1999.