Chiu v Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd - [2024] WADC 5

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CHIU -v- LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2024] WADC 5
CORAM:   REGISTRAR JEYAMOHAN
HEARD:   16 OCTOBER 2023
DELIVERED          :   1 FEBRUARY 2024
FILE NO/S:   CIV 5211 of 2022
BETWEEN:   MING-LAN CHIU
Plaintiff
AND
LIEBHERR-AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Procedure - Pleadings - Summary judgment or strike out on application of defendant - Relevant principles - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)
Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA)

Result:

Amended statement of claim struck out in its entirety
Summary judgment application dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendant	:	Mr A J C Mossop

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendant	:	Ai Group Workplace Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Brewer v AAL Aviation Ltd [2016] FCA 93
Bride v Peat Marwick Mitchell [1989] WAR 383
Chiu v Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd [2022] FWC 1842
Dafallah v Fair Work Commission [2014] FCA 328
English v Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd [2021] WASCA 47
McJannett v Gibbs [2012] WASC 369
Mulcahy v Hydro-Electric Commission (1998) 85 FCR 170
Pisano v South Metropolitan Health Service [2023] WASCA 80
R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601
State of New South Wales v Paige [2002] NSWCA 235
Vantage Holdings Group Pty Ltd v Donnelly [No 4] [2019] WASC 398

REGISTRAR JEYAMOHAN:

Introduction and summary

By chamber summons dated 8 May 2023, heard 16 October 2023, the defendant applies:
(a)for summary judgment pursuant to O 16 r 1 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) (RSC); and
(b)in the alternative, that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim filed 13 September 2023 be struck out in its entirety, no further leave to replead be granted and the action be dismissed, pursuant to O 20 r 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(d) of the RSC.
(Application)
The plaintiff's statement of claim dated 29 November 2022 was previously struck out in its entirety following the initial hearing of the Application on 16 August 2023. At the conclusion of the hearing, orders were made granting the plaintiff leave to file a substituted statement of claim by 13 September 2023 with there being liberty to relist the Application.
The plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim on 13 September 2023 (ASOC) rather than a substituted statement of claim.
At a directions hearing on 27 September 2023, having reviewed the plaintiff's ASOC, the defendant sought the relisting of its Application for hearing at a special appointment. The Application is opposed by the plaintiff, Ming-Lan Chiu, who is a self-represented litigant.
The Application proceeded to hearing on 16 October 2023.
For the reasons that follow the ASOC is struck out in its entirety with leave to replead if sought. The application for summary judgment is dismissed.

Background

By writ of summons filed 29 November 2022 the plaintiff's claim, as set out in 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Chiu v Liebherr-Australia Pty 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: [2024] WADC 5
Decision Date: 1 FEBRUARY 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chiu versus Liebherr-Australia Pty Ltd, the Federal Court was tasked with addressing a dispute that centred on the defendant's application for summary judgment or to strike out the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff, Chiu, had brought an action against Liebherr-Australia, alleging breaches of contract and claims for damages arising from the sale of a defective mobile crane. The defendant sought to resolve the matter without a full trial by arguing that the plaintiff's claims were legally untenable.

The central legal issues before the court involved determining whether the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to withstand a summary judgment motion or if they should be struck out. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's claims disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether there were any triable issues. This hinged on the interpretation of the pleadings and whether they were sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

The court meticulously reviewed the relevant legal principles governing summary judgment and striking out applications. It noted that such applications turn on the specific facts of each case and require a careful examination of the pleadings. The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings were detailed and particularised enough to withstand a summary judgment motion and did not warrant being struck out. The claims for breach of contract and damages were deemed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and there were triable issues that needed to be determined at a trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment or to strike out the plaintiff's claim.

Orders