Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

Case [2012] QCA 66

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QCA 66

PARTIES:

IRENE CORONIS
(appellant)
v
JILT PTY LTD
(first respondent)
LESLIE JAMES WILLIAMS
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 6355 of 2011
DC No 393 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

23 March 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Chesterman JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made, Chesterman JA dissenting as to construction of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 474

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – TRIAL – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant elected trial by jury but did not pay prescribed fees – where respondents sought order pursuant Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 474 that trial proceed without jury – whether primary judge erred in ordering trial proceed without jury

APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADINGS – AMENDMENT – where the appellant was an unrepresented litigant – where she had difficulties pleading her claims – where pleadings were amended seven times – whether judge was obliged to invite or direct the appellant to further amend the pleadings to properly identify claims

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURTS BELOW – PARTICULAR CASES – CONTROL OVER PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where appellant's husband was a former practising barrister who had been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and who no longer had a practising certificate – whether primary judge erred in refusing leave to allow appellant's husband either to appear for her or to assist her as a McKenzie friend

APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OF COURTS BELOW – whether primary judge made erroneous findings of fact – whether primary judge addressed arguments presented by appellant

Jury Act 1995 (Qld), s 36(1), s 65
Jury Regulation 2007 (Qld), reg 11(1)
Supreme Court Rules 1999 (Qld), O 39 r 8
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5, r 367, r 375, r 474, r 770

Beta Construction Ltd v Channel Four Television Co Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1042, cited
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corporation Ltd [1981] AC 909, cited
Coffey v State of Queensland & Ors [2010] QCA 291, cited
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd & Anor [2009] QDC 314, related
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd, Harrison DCJ, DC No 393 of 2004, unreported, 24 June 2011, related
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22, considered
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529; [1981] UKHL 13, cited
Kelly v Kelly [1990] 2 Qd R 147,…

Continue reading Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd [2012] QCA 66
Case
[2012] QCA 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd involved the appellant, an unrepresented litigant, who had elected to proceed with a trial by jury but failed to pay the requisite fees. The respondents applied for an order under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 474 to have the trial conducted without a jury. The case also raised issues regarding the amendment of pleadings and the involvement of the appellant’s husband, a former barrister, in her legal representation. The primary judge allowed the respondents' application, refused leave for the appellant’s husband to appear or assist, and made findings that the appellant had not properly identified her claims.

The legal issues before the court included whether the primary judge erred in ordering the trial to proceed without a jury, given the appellant's election to have one but non-payment of the fees. The court also had to consider whether the judge was required to invite or direct the appellant to further amend her pleadings, which had already been amended seven times due to difficulties in pleading. Additionally, the court examined if the primary judge was correct in refusing to allow the appellant’s husband to appear or assist her, despite his professional background.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in ordering the trial to proceed without a jury, as the appellant's failure to pay the prescribed fees justified the judge's decision. Regarding the pleadings, the court held that the judge was not obliged to invite further amendments, given the complexity and the appellant's unrepresented status. The court also upheld the decision to exclude the appellant's husband from participating in the proceedings, as it was in the interests of fairness and the administration of justice. The findings of fact and the addressing of arguments by the primary judge were deemed correct.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, affirming the primary judge's decisions and upholding the trial proceedings as conducted. The costs were awarded to the respondents, Jilt Pty Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.