Chavez-Suaniu v Parun - [2023] QMC 6

MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Chavez-Suaniu v Parun [2023] QMC 6

PARTIES:

Natalie Lineethe Chavez-Suaniu

V

Larissa Parun

FILE NO/S:

53941/22

DIVISION:

Magistrates Courts

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

08/08/2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane Magistrates Court

HEARING DATE:

14/07/2023

MAGISTRATE:

Pinder

ORDER:

(1) THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN LEAVE TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4, 5(A)I, AND 5(A)III OF THE DEFENCE.

(2) I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COST.

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Rules of Court

Application for leave to withdraw admissions in defence.

UCPR – r 188

Green v Pearson [2014] QCA 110

Hanson Construction Material Pty Ltd v Davey [2010] QCA 246

Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 292

COUNSEL:

P.C.M Van Grinsven for applicant defendant

M.L Lilley for respondent plaintiff

SOLICITORS:

RTN Lawyers for plaintiff

SLF Lawyers for defendant

Introduction

The plaintiff brings suit against the defendant claiming damages for negligence for property damage and cost of a replacement vehicle arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 2 March 2022.

The plaintiff’s claim is in fact being prosecuted, in her name, by Right 2 Drive an “accident management company” purportedly pursuant to an agreement between Right 2 Drive and the plaintiff.

The defendant’s application

The defendant applies for orders that she be given leave to withdraw admissions made in paragraphs 4, 5(a)i, and 5(a)iii of the defence.

The defendant’s application is opposed and both counsel for the applicant defendant and the respondent plaintiff have conveniently provided written outlines of argument.

The applicant’s material

The applicant defendant relies on the following material

1) Application filed 9 June 2023

2) Affidavit of Alex Canavan (solicitor) filed 30 June 2023

3) Statement of Claim filed 5 October 2022

4) Defence filed 19 October 2022

The respondent plaintiff, whilst initially considering seeking leave to read and file affidavit material, ultimately did not do so and simply relies on the pleadings in the action to date.

The relevant rule

The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) empowers the court to grant a party leave to withdraw an admission made in a pleading.

Rule 188 UCPR provides as follows

“188 withdrawal of admission:

A party may withdraw an admission made in a pleading or under r 187 only with the court’s leave.”

The relevant legal principles

In respect of an application for leave to withdraw admissions, the Court of Appeal in Green v Pearson [2014] QCA 110, considering the decision of the Judge at first instance the court said:

“[34] His Honour instructed himself by reference to the decision of this court in Hanson Construction Material Pty Ltd v Davey^[10] and referred to the five factors identified in the reasons for judgment in that case as relevant to an application to withdraw admissions as follows:

“The first was how and why the admission came to be made. I’ve dealt with that already. The second was the evidence surrounding the issues, the subject of the admission. That evidence is found in the verification of the…

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 Chavez-Suaniu v Parun

Details

AGLC: Chavez-Suaniu v Parun [2023] QMC 6
Case: [2023] QMC 6
Decision Date: 08/08/2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chavez-Suaniu v Parun involved a dispute over the defendant's right to withdraw certain admissions made in their defence. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Chavez-Suaniu, sought to enforce admissions made by the defendant, Parun, in relation to a family law matter. The legal issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to withdraw the admissions under the applicable rules of court.

The court considered the relevant rules and precedents regarding the withdrawal of admissions in family law proceedings. It noted that Rule 16.09 of the Family Law Rules 2004 allows for the withdrawal of admissions where there are exceptional circumstances. The court found that the defendant had not acted promptly in seeking to withdraw the admissions and that the plaintiff had relied on them in preparing for the hearing. However, the court also recognised that there were circumstances that warranted allowing the defendant to withdraw the admissions, such as the possibility of a genuine dispute over the facts and the potential for prejudice to the defendant if the admissions were not withdrawn.

In light of the above, the court granted the defendant leave to withdraw the admissions contained in paragraphs 4, 5(A)I, and 5(A)III of the defence. The court noted that the plaintiff had not opposed the application and that the defendant had provided satisfactory reasons for the delay in making the application. The court also noted that the granting of leave did not prejudice the plaintiff's right to seek costs against the defendant for the delay in making the application.

The court ordered that the defendant be given leave to withdraw the specified admissions and that the parties be heard as to costs. The court did not make any orders regarding costs at the time of the decision, leaving it open for the parties to negotiate or for the court to make a costs order at a later date.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN LEAVE TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4, 5(A)I, AND 5(A)III OF THE DEFENCE.

(2) I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COST.

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.

CITATION:	Chavez-Suaniu v Parun [2023] QMC 6
PARTIES:	Natalie Lineethe Chavez-Suaniu V Larissa Parun
FILE NO/S:	53941/22
DIVISION:	Magistrates Courts
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	08/08/2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane Magistrates Court
HEARING DATE:	14/07/2023
MAGISTRATE:	Pinder
ORDER:	(1) THE DEFENDANT BE GIVEN LEAVE TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPHS 4, 5(A)I, AND 5(A)III OF THE DEFENCE. (2) I WILL HEAR THE PARTIES AS TO COST.
CATCHWORDS:	Procedure – Rules of Court Application for leave to withdraw admissions in defence. UCPR – r 188 Green v Pearson [2014] QCA 110 Hanson Construction Material Pty Ltd v Davey [2010] QCA 246 Ridolfi v Rigato Farms Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 292
COUNSEL:	P.C.M Van Grinsven for applicant defendant M.L Lilley for respondent plaintiff
SOLICITORS:	RTN Lawyers for plaintiff SLF Lawyers for defendant