Legal Research
Cases
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

Case [2009] QDC 314 6 October 2009

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Discovery & Disclosure

Res Judicata

Compensatory Damages

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] QDC 314

PARTIES:

IRENE CORONIS

Plaintiff

V

JILT PTY LTD ACN 010 556 242

First Defendant

and

LESLIE JAMES WILLIAMS

Second Defendant

FILE NO/S:

Cairns D393/2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application and cross-application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court of Queensland, at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2009

JUDGE:

Alan Wilson SC, DCJ

ORDER:

1        Paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 18 – 21 inclusive, and 28 – 30 inclusive of the further amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff on 7 April 2009 are struck out;

2 The plaintiff is ordered to deliver particulars of her claims for damages in compliance with r 155 within 14 days;

3        The second defendant is added as a party to the action, with liberty to deliver a defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages;

4        The first defendant also has liberty to deliver a further amended defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages;

5        That two-thirds of the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of the cross-applications, assessed on the standard basis, be their costs in the cause

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADINGS – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – application to strike out statement of claim of self-represented party – where many previous pleadings made – where number of pleadings due to attempts to frame additional or alternative causes of action – whether self-represented party must plead legal significance of alleged facts – whether current pleadings provide for a cause of action – whether limits should be placed upon re-pleading

Statute of Frauds 1677 (UK)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 5, r 16, r 155, r 171

Cases considered:
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14
Assheton v Merrett (1928) SASR 11
Awan v Minister for Immigration (2002) 120 FCR 1
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] QCA 126
Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 84 FCR 438
Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148
Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram [2005] NSWCA 58
Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288
Tomasevic v Travaglini (2007) 17 VR 100
Turner v Windever [2003] NSWSC 1147
Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

COUNSEL:

I Coronis, on her own behalf
D P Morzone for first and second defendants

SOLICITORS:

I Coronis, self-represented
Williams Graham and Carmen for defendants

Ms Coronis once owned commercial premises in Cairns where she conducted a beauty salon and school. She leased part of the building to a real estate agency. In December 2002 she sold the building to Jilt Pty Ltd, of which Mr Williams is a director. After the sale Ms Coronis remained in occupation…

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 Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 314
Case: [2009] QDC 314
Decision Date: 6 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd, the District Court of Queensland was tasked with determining whether certain parts of the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out. The plaintiff, self-represented, had filed multiple pleadings over time, attempting to frame additional or alternative causes of action. The defendants sought to have parts of the latest statement of claim struck out, arguing that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate the legal significance of the alleged facts and had not properly pleaded a cause of action. Additionally, the defendants argued that limits should be placed on the plaintiff's ability to re-plead.

The court considered whether the plaintiff was required to plead the legal significance of the alleged facts and whether the current pleadings provided for a cause of action. The court also evaluated whether limits should be imposed on the plaintiff's re-pleading in light of the many previous pleadings made. The court found that certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim were vague and did not sufficiently explain the legal basis of the claims, and thus struck them out. The court also ordered the plaintiff to provide particulars of her claims for damages and added the second defendant as a party to the action, allowing both defendants an opportunity to file amended defences.

In summary, the court struck out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, ordered the plaintiff to provide particulars of her claims for damages, added the second defendant as a party to the action, and granted the defendants liberty to deliver amended defences. The court also ordered the defendants to be paid two-thirds of their costs of and incidental to the hearing of the cross-applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 18 – 21 inclusive, and 28 – 30 inclusive of the further amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff on 7 April 2009 are struck out;

2 The plaintiff is ordered to deliver particulars of her claims for damages in compliance with r 155 within 14 days;

3 The second defendant is added as a party to the action, with liberty to deliver a defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages;

4 The first defendant also has liberty to deliver a further amended defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages;

5 That two-thirds of the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of the cross-applications, assessed on the standard basis, be their costs in the cause

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd [2009] QDC 314

Most Recent Citation

Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 66

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

ACM Group Ltd v Jenner
[2014] QMC 7 Para 1

…ck out when they may raise genuine triable issues and with proper amendment or permissible assistance from the court could be put in to proper form ( Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd (2013) 1 Qd R 104 at 107 per McMurdo P).…
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd
[2012] QCA 66 Para 1

…ncidental to the hearing of the cross-applications, assessed on the standard basis, be their costs in the cause.[2] [2] Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] QDC 314.…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Kaufman and Kaufman and Ors (No 2)
[2010] FamCA 474 Para 1

…the issues it raises were touched upon in the majority judgment of the High Court in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14 in which it was said that while a ‘ just resolution of proceedings remains the paramount purpose ’ of court rules like r 5, the question of a just re…
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University
[2009] HCA 27 Para 1

…Relevantly to that question, after this application was heard the issues it raises were touched upon in the majority judgment of the High Court in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14 in which it was said that while a ‘ just resolution of proceedings remains the paramount purpose ’ of court rules like r 5, the question of a…
Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw
[2009] QCA 126 Para 1

…[1]The facts and matters from which this action springs were summarised in a recent Court of Appeal decision: Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] QCA 126.…
Wentworth v Rogers & Anor
[2007] HCATrans 747 Para 1

…into proper form.[14] [13] General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, at 130. [14] Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 536 and 543.…
Tomasevic v Travaglini
[2007] VSC 337 Para 1

…ends to cases involving interlocutory proceedings like applications to strike out pleadings. The helpful judgment of Bell J in Tomasevic v Travaglini (2007) 17 VR 100 collects several examples.…
Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram
[2005] NSWCA 58 Para 1

…In Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram [2005] NSWCA 58 Pearlman AJA (with whom Mason P and Hodgson JA agreed) remarked[12] ‘… there is no doubt that the appellant was profoundly ignorant of the rules of evidence and procedure. He seems to have understood his cause of action, but to have had little idea about how to overco…
Tobin v Dodd
[2004] WASCA 288 Para 1

…In Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288 the self-represented plaintiff commenced proceedings against solicitors claiming damages for their alleged breaches of duties owed to him as a client. The lawyers applied to strike out the statement of claim and after some interlocutory skirmishing involving further attempts at plea…
Turner v Windever
[2003] NSWSC 1147 Para 1

…on her business, and he knew that and permitted her to stay but then, allegedly, made it impossible for her to do so. [17] Turner v Windever [2003] NSWSC 1147 at [145] per Austin J .…
Awan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
[2002] FCA 594 Para 1

…In Awan v Minister for Immigration (2002) 120 FCR 1 North J also referred to the decision in Minogue when he said, at p 17, that the court is bound to protect the rights of the unrepresented litigant (but, at the same time, also bound to ensure that it does not prejudice the impartial function which it must fulfil…
Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[1999] FCA 85 Para 1

…t him at a disadvantage, and entitled him to at least some limited advice and assistance (Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 84 FCR 438 ) . [12]At para [33].…
Neil v Nott
[1994] HCA 23 Para 1

…t they must attract the kind of obligation, on the part of the court to whom they are presented, which was mentioned by the High Court in Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 at 150: ‘ A frequent consequence of self representation is that the court must assume the burden of endeavouring to ascertain the rights of the parti…
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio
[1983] HCA 14 Para 1

…t seems to rest in the common law remedy and, as pleaded, appears to be of the kind discussed in cases like Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447. It is alleged that Mr Williams is a wealthy businessman who promised the plaintiff quiet enjoyment of her premises in circumstances where he subsequ…
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW)
[1964] HCA 69 Para 1

…ment or permissible assistance from the court, could be put into proper form.[14] [13] General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, at 130. [14] Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534 at 536 and 543.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
5 1 mention

CITATION:	Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] QDC 314
PARTIES:	IRENE CORONIS Plaintiff V JILT PTY LTD ACN 010 556 242 First Defendant and LESLIE JAMES WILLIAMS Second Defendant
FILE NO/S:	Cairns D393/2004
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application and cross-application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court of Queensland, at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2009
JUDGE:	Alan Wilson SC, DCJ
ORDER:	1 Paragraphs 5, 10, 15, 18 – 21 inclusive, and 28 – 30 inclusive of the further amended statement of claim filed by the plaintiff on 7 April 2009 are struck out; 2 The plaintiff is ordered to deliver particulars of her claims for damages in compliance with r 155 within 14 days; 3 The second defendant is added as a party to the action, with liberty to deliver a defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages; 4 The first defendant also has liberty to deliver a further amended defence within 21 days after delivery of the plaintiff’s further particulars of damages; 5 That two-thirds of the defendants’ costs of and incidental to the hearing of the cross-applications, assessed on the standard basis, be their costs in the cause
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADINGS – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – application to strike out statement of claim of self-represented party – where many previous pleadings made – where number of pleadings due to attempts to frame additional or alternative causes of action – whether self-represented party must plead legal significance of alleged facts – whether current pleadings provide for a cause of action – whether limits should be placed upon re-pleading Statute of Frauds 1677 (UK) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 r 5, r 16, r 155, r 171 Cases considered: Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14 Assheton v Merrett (1928) SASR 11 Awan v Minister for Immigration (2002) 120 FCR 1 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Legal Services Commissioner v Bradshaw [2009] QCA 126 Minogue v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1999) 84 FCR 438 Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 Panagiotopoulos v Rajendram [2005] NSWCA 58 Tobin v Dodd [2004] WASCA 288 Tomasevic v Travaglini (2007) 17 VR 100 Turner v Windever [2003] NSWSC 1147 Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534
COUNSEL:	I Coronis, on her own behalf D P Morzone for first and second defendants
SOLICITORS:	I Coronis, self-represented Williams Graham and Carmen for defendants