Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd

Case [2011] NSWCA 258

Court of Appeal

New South Wales
Case Title: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd
Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWCA 258
Hearing Date(s): 26 August 2011
Decision Date: 26 August 2011
Jurisdiction:
Before:

Macfarlan JA at [1] [10]
Whealy JA at [9]
Decision:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

APPEAL - civil - application for leave to appeal against decision of primary judge striking out amended statement of claim and declining to grant leave to replead - application for leave to appeal refused - no issue of principle
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Texts Cited:
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

Rita Cameron (Applicant)
Qantas Airways Ltd (First Respondent)
Stephen J Walker t/as Walker Legal (Second Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:

Counsel:
Applicant in person
J Catsanos (First Respondent)
D Priestley (Second Respondent)
- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Applicant in person
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (First Respondent)
Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Second Respondent)
File number(s): CA 2010/1198941
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Latham J
- Date of Decision: 25 February 2011
- Citation: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWSC 178
- Court File Number(s) SC 2010/118941
Publication Restriction:

Judgment

  1. MACFARLAN JA : This is an application by Ms Rita Cameron for leave to appeal against the decision dated 25 February 2011 of Latham J, sitting in the Common Law Division of this Court ([2011] NSWSC 178). By that decision, her Honour ordered that an Amended Statement of Claim filed by Ms Cameron seeking damages and other relief from the present respondents be struck out. Her Honour declined to grant leave to Ms Cameron to replead.

  1. The long history of these, and earlier related, proceedings is recounted in the judgment of Latham J and in the earlier judgments, including that of Schmidt J, dated 13 August 2010 ([2010] NSWSC 899) to which her Honour refers. It is sufficient for present purposes to note the following.

  1. On 8 March 1999 Ms Cameron was injured in the course of her employment with the first respondent. Ms Cameron subsequently brought proceedings in the District Court against the first respondent claiming damages. After eight days of hearing before McLoughlin DCJ the proceedings were settled on terms that included a judgment in favour of Ms Cameron in the sum of $940,000 less certain deductions, with the parties to pay their own costs. Ms Cameron was at that time represented by the present second respondent, a solicitor, and by a barrister.

  1. Ms Cameron subsequently filed notices of motion in the District Court seeking to have the settlement set aside. They were dismissed. She then…

Continue reading Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWCA 258
Case
[2011] NSWCA 258
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cameron, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against a decision of a primary judge who had struck out an amended statement of claim and refused leave to replead. Qantas Airways Ltd was the respondent. The dispute concerned the applicant's claim against the respondent, the details of which are not specified in the provided text. The appeal was heard by Macfarlan and Whealy JJA in the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in striking out the amended statement of claim and in refusing leave to replead. This involved an assessment of whether the applicant's pleading disclosed a cause of action and whether the refusal to allow further amendment was an appropriate exercise of the primary judge's discretion.

The Court of Appeal determined that there was no issue of principle raised by the application for leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave. The reasoning for this refusal, beyond the absence of an issue of principle, is not elaborated upon in the provided text.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.