Butler v Robinson

[1999] QSC 8

IN THE SUPREME COURT  

OF QUEENSLAND
  No. 3735 of 1997
Brisbane

Before Mr Justice Muir

[Butler v Robinson]

BETWEEN:

CLIVE GEORGE BUTLER

Plaintiff
AND:

FISHER ROBINSON    Solicitors

Defendant

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

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

Mr R.M. Derrington for the defendant

Solicitors:Clayton Utz 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 9292 of 1996 and 6521 of 1996 which are detailed in my reasons in 9292 of 1996. The statement of claim the subject of the applications before me in this action was delivered on 27 May 1998. In 6521 of 1996 the plaintiff claimed against Crowley & Greenhalgh Solicitors, formerly Lyn Crowley & Company in respect of their acting for him in two matters which those solicitors had taken over from the solicitors who first acted for the plaintiff. The claims in 9292 of 1996, for the most part, concern claims against Simmonds Crowley & Galvin in respect of their acting for the plaintiff in a Magistrates Court action by a Ms Vize against the plaintiff. The statement of claim in action 3735 of 1997 alleges claims against Fisher Robinson Solicitors -

   a.in respect of a claim against Crowley & Greenhalgh for alleged wrongful conduct by that firm in relation to the matters raised in action 6521 of 1996;

   b.in respect of an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate in the Vize matter;

   c.in respect of a claim for fees by Simmonds Crowley & Galvin.

2. Also included in the statement of claim is another claim against the defendant for acting in a matter in relation to “Showerama and the Maroochy Shire Council”.

3. The observations that I have made of deficiencies in the pleadings in 9292 of 1996 and 6521 of 1996 in my reasons in those matters are generally applicable to this statement of claim and I propose to strike it out for the reasons discussed in the reasons in those matters.

   Orders on the plaintiff’s summons

4. 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

5. 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.