Carrigan v Hill - [2025] QSC 34

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Carrigan v Hill [2025] QSC 34

PARTIES:

FIONA MARIE CARRIGAN

(First Plaintiff)

And

JOSHUA ALEXANDER CARRIGAN
(Second Plaintiff)

v

PETER DONALD HILL

(First Defendant)

And

CATHERINE BRIDGET HILL

(Second Defendant)

And

BLOOMFIELD LAND PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 362) AS TRUSTEE OF THE BLOOMFIELD LAND TRUST

(Third Defendant)

And

BLOOMFIELD COTTON PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 326) AS TRUSTEE OF THE BLOOMFIELD COTTON TRUST

(Fourth Defendant)

And

GOORAROOMAN PTY LTD (ACN 010 044 238) AS TRUSTEE OF THE PETER HILL FAMILY TRUST

(Fifth Defendant)

And

HASTINGS LAND PTY LTD (ACN 678 882 654) AS TRUSTEE OF THE HASTINGS TRUST

(Sixth Defendant)

And

WALDOR GRAZING PTY LTD (ACN 664 377 404) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RIVERSDALE TRUST

(Seventh Defendant)

And

BLOOMFIELD LAND PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 362)

(Eighth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

15501/24

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 March 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2025

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDER:

1.    Paragraphs 181, 182, 185, 189 and 190 of the Statement of Claim are struck out.

2.   The plaintiffs have leave to replead.

3.   The plaintiffs must pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants by way of claim and statement of claim – where the statement of claim was comprised of 196 paragraphs written in “narrative style” – where paragraphs 181, 182, 185, 189 and 190 of the statement of claim purported to rely on the matters pleaded in the preceding 166 or 180 paragraphs to support their pleaded conclusions – where the relevant paragraphs did not otherwise identify any particular alleged facts which supported each pleaded conclusion – where the defendants applied for the relevant paragraphs to be struck out on the general basis that they did not state the case which must be met in a clear fashion – whether the relevant paragraphs state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met – whether the relevant paragraphs comply with the rules of pleading – whether the relevant paragraphs should be struck out

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(2), r 8, r 135, r 171

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority (2006) 33 WAR 82; [2006] WASC 281, considered
Barr Rock Pty Ltd v Blast Ice Creams Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 252, considered
Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22, considered
Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest Pty Ltd (2013) 95 ACSR 583; [2013] QSC 211, considered
National Australia Bank Limited v Rowe [2018] WASC 330, considered
Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (2021) 7 QR 377; [2021] QSC 35, considered
Rowe v National Australia Bank Limited (2019) 56 WAR 1; [2019] WASCA 140, cited

COUNSEL:

D de Jersey KC and K Gaston for the applicants/defendants
D Marks KC and S Carius for…

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.

Continue reading Carrigan v Hill

Details

AGLC: Carrigan v Hill [2025] QSC 34
Case: [2025] QSC 34
Decision Date: 5 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Carrigan v Hill was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants, and the defendants sought to have certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim struck out on the basis that they did not comply with the rules of pleading. Specifically, the defendants argued that the relevant paragraphs were overly lengthy and included unnecessary details that did not contribute to identifying the issues, disclosing an arguable claim or defence, or informing the parties of the case that had to be met.

The court was required to decide whether the relevant paragraphs met the requirements of the rules of pleading and whether they should be struck out. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA) and the authorities on pleading and case management. The court found that the relevant paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading as they included unnecessary particulars and evidence, which obscured the identification of the true issues in contention and impacted on the proper and efficient preparation of a case and its presentation at trial.

The court held that the relevant paragraphs should be struck out as they did not state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met and did not comply with the rules of pleading. The court granted leave to the plaintiffs to replead the relevant paragraphs and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to the rules of pleading and the need to avoid unnecessary particulars and evidence in pleadings. It also emphasises the role of case management in achieving the goals of the rules and the need to avoid prolixity in pleadings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 181, 182, 185, 189 and 190 of the Statement of Claim are struck out.

2. The plaintiffs have leave to replead.

3. The plaintiffs must pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

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

But, whatever the “style” of pleading engaged in by the party, it must comply with the mandated rules. This was the subject of helpful analysis by Vaughan J in National Australia Bank Limited v Rowe[4] where his Honour referred to O 20 r 8(1)[5] of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and said:[2] It is said that this rule is applied in a more flexible way than was the case in earlier times in view of the principles of positive case flow management. [3] Equally, referring to case management authorities as to the modern function of pleadings, it is often sought to justify an overly lengthy pleading by reference simply to whether it identifies the issues, discloses an arguable claim and informs the parties of the case that has to be met. The strictures of O 20 r 8(1) are ignored. Evidence is pleaded, either under the guise of being a material fact or by way of particulars, and the particulars themselves go beyond that which is necessary. [4] It is simply wrong to read decisions such as Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority as in any way condoning this approach. To the contrary, the goal in O 1 r 4A of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and the objects of O 1 r 4B are best achieved through conscientious adherence to O 20 r 8(1). Prolixity obscures identification of the true issues in contention and adversely impacts on the proper and efficient preparation of a case and its presentation at trial. Where this style of pleading must be responded to a vast number of false issues will be raised. It places a significant burden on the parties, in terms of costs, and also the resources of the court.[5] The requirements of O 20 r 8(1) should be observed in preparing a pleading. Practitioners may do so confident in the knowledge that a summary statement of the material facts — and only such a summary statement — is what is required by the rules. The true significance of the case management authorities in this area is that it is unnecessary to encumber a pleading with unnecessary particulars, and all the more so evidence, as it is inevitable that there will be subsequent pre‐trial disclosure of the evidence to be adduced at trial. [6] A pleading must identify the issues, disclose an arguable claim or defence, and inform the parties of the case to be met. In doing so it should be clear and complete but concise. That standard is not met by over‐complicating the pleading with unnecessary particulars and evidence.[7] A prolix pleading, offending the requirements of O 20 r 8(1) by its incorporation of unnecessary or irrelevant material, may be struck out on the ground that it will prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action. Doing so, approaching the pleading as a whole rather than requiring the other party and the court to undertake the oppressive task of surgical excision to remove all but the material facts, will often be the means most conductive to meeting the goal in O 1 r 4A and the objects of O 1 r 4B.” (emphasis added)[4] [2018] WASC 330[5]“Subject to the provisions of this rule, and rules 11, 12 and 13 every pleading must contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved, and the statement must be as brief as the nature of the case admits.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Carrigan v Hill [2025] QSC 34
PARTIES:	FIONA MARIE CARRIGAN (First Plaintiff) And JOSHUA ALEXANDER CARRIGAN (Second Plaintiff) v PETER DONALD HILL (First Defendant) And CATHERINE BRIDGET HILL (Second Defendant) And BLOOMFIELD LAND PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 362) AS TRUSTEE OF THE BLOOMFIELD LAND TRUST (Third Defendant) And BLOOMFIELD COTTON PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 326) AS TRUSTEE OF THE BLOOMFIELD COTTON TRUST (Fourth Defendant) And GOORAROOMAN PTY LTD (ACN 010 044 238) AS TRUSTEE OF THE PETER HILL FAMILY TRUST (Fifth Defendant) And HASTINGS LAND PTY LTD (ACN 678 882 654) AS TRUSTEE OF THE HASTINGS TRUST (Sixth Defendant) And WALDOR GRAZING PTY LTD (ACN 664 377 404) AS TRUSTEE FOR THE RIVERSDALE TRUST (Seventh Defendant) And BLOOMFIELD LAND PTY LTD (ACN 164 309 362) (Eighth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	15501/24
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 March 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2025
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDER:	1. Paragraphs 181, 182, 185, 189 and 190 of the Statement of Claim are struck out. 2. The plaintiffs have leave to replead. 3. The plaintiffs must pay the defendant’s costs of the application.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – GENERALLY – where the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants by way of claim and statement of claim – where the statement of claim was comprised of 196 paragraphs written in “narrative style” – where paragraphs 181, 182, 185, 189 and 190 of the statement of claim purported to rely on the matters pleaded in the preceding 166 or 180 paragraphs to support their pleaded conclusions – where the relevant paragraphs did not otherwise identify any particular alleged facts which supported each pleaded conclusion – where the defendants applied for the relevant paragraphs to be struck out on the general basis that they did not state the case which must be met in a clear fashion – whether the relevant paragraphs state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met – whether the relevant paragraphs comply with the rules of pleading – whether the relevant paragraphs should be struck out Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(2), r 8, r 135, r 171 Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority (2006) 33 WAR 82; [2006] WASC 281, considered Barr Rock Pty Ltd v Blast Ice Creams Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 252, considered Markan v Queensland Police Service [2015] QCA 22, considered Mio Art Pty Ltd v Macequest Pty Ltd (2013) 95 ACSR 583; [2013] QSC 211, considered National Australia Bank Limited v Rowe [2018] WASC 330, considered Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd (2021) 7 QR 377; [2021] QSC 35, considered Rowe v National Australia Bank Limited (2019) 56 WAR 1; [2019] WASCA 140, cited
COUNSEL:	D de Jersey KC and K Gaston for the applicants/defendants D Marks KC and S Carius for…