Drake v PKF (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd

Drake brought an action against PKF (Gold Coast) Pty Ltd, along with two other defendants, in the Queensland Supreme Court. The action arose from alleged negligence by the defendants in 2013, and Drake had amended his statement of claim ten times. The defendants sought to have Drake's statement of claim struck out, arguing that it contained deficiencies that had not been addressed in the most recent amendments. Additionally, the defendants applied for the proceeding to be dismissed due to Drake's lack of progress and want of prosecution.

The court considered whether Drake's statement of claim should be struck out without leave to replead and whether the proceeding should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that Drake had not made significant amendments to his statement of claim to address the deficiencies identified previously. The defendants argued that they had suffered prejudice due to the unresolved proceeding, including increased insurance premiums and less favourable terms of cover. Although this prejudice did not directly impact the ability to ensure a fair trial, it did contribute to the consideration of whether the proceeding should be dismissed.

The court concluded that it was appropriate to exercise its inherent power to dismiss the action for want of prosecution. The court found that Drake had not taken reasonable steps to progress the proceeding, and the defendants had suffered prejudice due to the unresolved proceeding. The court struck out certain paragraphs of Drake's statement of claim without leave to replead and dismissed the proceeding for want of prosecution. The court ordered that the defendants and Drake file written submissions on costs, limited to four pages each, and that the question of costs would be decided on the papers.