Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2010] NSWSC 899

CITATION: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd and Anor [2010] NSWSC 899

HEARING DATE(S): 6 August 2010

JUDGMENT DATE :
13 August 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Schmidt J

DECISION: Plaintiff granted leave to amend her statement of claim.
Plaintiff to bear the defendants’ costs of their motions and the hearing, as agreed or assessed.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE - Supreme Court procedure - New South Wales - application under Part 14.28 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to strike out statement of claim - leave sought to further amend pleading - leave granted - costs

LEGISLATION CITED: Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings

CASES CITED: Gunns Limited v Marr [2005] VSC 251
Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Limited [2001] NSWCA 44; (2001) 54 NSWLR 135
Cameron v Qantas Airways Limited [2008] NSWCA 275
Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2009] NSWCA 339

PARTIES: Rita Cameron - Plaintiff
Qantas Airways Ltd - First Defendant
Walker Legal - Second Defendant

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2010/118941

COUNSEL: First Defendant - Mr J Catsanos
Second Defendant - Mr M Dicker

SOLICITORS: Plaintiff - Ms Cameron, unrepresented
First Defendant - HWL Ebsworth
Second Defendant - Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk

- 8 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMON LAW DIVISION

SCHMIDT J

FRIDAY, 13 AUGUST 2010

2010/118941 RITA CAMERON v QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD AND ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 HER HONOUR: These proceedings were commenced by statement of claim filed in May 2010. There the plaintiff, Ms Cameron, sought orders for $8 million from the first defendant, Qantas Airways Ltd ('Qantas') and $2 million from the second defendant, Walker Legal, her former solicitors. The basis on which those orders were sought is not readily apparent. Ms Cameron later filed a notice of motion and an amended statement of claim. The defendants have yet to put on any defences.

2 The defendants filed motions in May and July 2010, seeking orders pursuant to Part 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, striking out the statement of claim as an abuse of process; disclosing no reasonable cause of action; and causing prejudice and embarrassment.

3 At the hearing the parties directed their cases to the amended statement of claim. After hearing the defendants’ submissions, Ms Cameron sought leave to further amend her statement of claim. From Ms Cameron's own explanation of the case which she really wishes to bring in this Court, it became apparent that her pleadings require substantial amendment.

4 The defendants did not oppose that leave being granted, on the basis that Ms Cameron be ordered to bear the costs of their motions and costs thrown away in meeting the existing pleadings. Ms Cameron opposed such an order being made

Leave to amend granted

5 At the hearing, I indicated that the leave sought by Ms Cameron would be granted, being satisfied that was what justice required in the circumstances.

6 There is a protracted history to the bringing of these proceedings. Ms Cameron was injured in a fork…

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: [2010] NSWSC 899
Decision Date: 13 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd involves an application made by the defendant, Qantas Airways Ltd, to the Supreme Court of New South Wales under Part 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999. The plaintiff, Mr Cameron, sought to strike out the defendant's statement of claim, and the defendant, in turn, applied for leave to further amend its pleading. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's application should be dismissed and whether the defendant should be granted leave to amend its pleadings.

The legal issues before the court involved the assessment of the sufficiency of the defendant's pleadings in light of the plaintiff's application to strike them out. The court had to consider whether the defendant's pleadings were so deficient that they warranted a strike-out or whether they contained sufficient information to warrant the defendant an opportunity to amend the pleadings. Furthermore, the court needed to determine whether the proposed amendments would be futile and whether granting leave to amend would cause any undue delay or prejudice to the plaintiff.

In determining the application, the court noted that while the defendant's pleadings were indeed deficient, they contained sufficient information to warrant the defendant the opportunity to amend its pleadings. The court found that the proposed amendments were not futile and would not cause any undue delay or prejudice to the plaintiff. Consequently, the court granted the defendant leave to amend its pleadings, dismissing the plaintiff's application to strike out the statement of claim. In addition, the court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the application to strike out.

Orders