Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2011] NSWSC 178

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Title: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor.

Medium Neutral Citation: [2011] NSWSC 178

Hearing Date(s): 21 February 2011

Decision Date: 25 February 2011

Jurisdiction:

Before:
Latham J

Decision:
The statement of claim filed 22 September 2010 is struck out against the first defendant and against the second defendant pursuant to Part 14, rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Leave not granted to the plaintiff to replead.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - application to strike out proceedings - statement of claim fails to appreciate limited nature of proceedings - statement of claim unintelligible, ambiguous, vague and too general.

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] NSWCA 275
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2009] NSWCA 339
Pethers v Minister for Agriculture [2010] NSWSC 805
Bott v Carter [2009] NSWSC 236

Texts Cited:

Category: Principal judgment

Parties:
Rita Cameron - (Plaintiff)
Qantas Airways Ltd - (1st Defendant)
Walker Legal - (2nd Defendant)

Representation

- Counsel:
Counsel:
Self-Represented - (Plaintiff)
J Catsanos - (1st Defendant)
M Dicker - (2nd Defendant)

- Solicitors:
Solicitors:
Self-Represented - (Plaintiff)
HWL Ebsworth - (1st Defendant)
Yeldham Price Oâ€™Brien Lusk (2nd Defendant)

File number(s): 2010/118941

Publication Restriction:

Judgment

This matter has a long and unsatisfactory history. The plaintiff instituted proceedings in the District Court in 2001 against Qantas claiming damages for injuries suffered in the course of her employment on 8 March 1999. A number of firms of solicitors (at least four) were successively engaged by the plaintiff in the course of the proceedings. An arbitration in 2002 was rejected by the plaintiff and she sought a re-hearing. Seven years after the commencement of the proceedings, following several days of hearing in the District Court, the parties reached a settlement on 1 February 2008. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiff sought to resile from the settlement and terminated the services of her then solicitors, the second defendant in the instant proceedings. The plaintiff has been unrepresented since that time.

In June of 2008, the first defendant paid the settlement moneys into court, less a sum which was paid out according to the terms of settlement and later, by way of costs incurred by the plaintiff's former solicitors. It appears that about half of the total settlement sum remains.

In October 2008, the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the consent orders made in the District Court was dismissed. In the course of that judgment ( Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] NSWCA 278), Hodgson JA observed that the plaintiff's claim with respect to the alleged undue influence brought to bear upon her by the second defendant was properly brought by way of fresh proceedings before a single judge, who had the capacity to hear evidence on the issue. In addition, it was noted that the plaintiff told the Court that she was in touch with a solicitor who was in a position to assist her. In the event…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 178
Decision Date: 25 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd involved the plaintiff seeking to challenge the defendant's decision to terminate their employment. The proceedings were brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Cameron, alleged that his dismissal was unfair and in breach of his employment contract. Qantas Airways Ltd, the defendant, contested the claims, arguing that the dismissal was carried out in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable law.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficient to proceed with the litigation. Specifically, the court had to determine if the statement of claim adequately disclosed a reasonable cause of action, given its unintelligible, ambiguous, vague, and overly general nature. The court needed to assess whether the statement of claim met the necessary standards to allow the case to move forward or if it should be struck out.

The court concluded that the statement of claim failed to meet the required standards. It was found to be unintelligible, ambiguous, vague, and too general, thereby failing to provide the court with a clear understanding of the plaintiff's claims. The court found that the plaintiff had not appreciated the limited nature of the proceedings, which was essential for the court to properly assess the merits of the case. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to strike out the plaintiff's proceedings. The court determined that the deficiencies in the statement of claim were such that they could not be remedied by amendment and that striking out the proceedings was the appropriate course of action.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's proceedings be struck out and that the defendant be awarded its costs of the application. The court emphasised the importance of clarity and precision in legal documents to ensure that the court can effectively address the issues presented. This decision underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to carefully prepare and articulate their claims to avoid their proceedings being struck out.

Orders