Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP - [2019] WADC 151

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   GABLE -v- QUIGLEY MLA LLB JP [2019] WADC 151
CORAM:   BURROWS DCJ
HEARD:   23 OCTOBER 2019
DELIVERED          :   1 NOVEMBER 2019
FILE NO/S:   CIV 708 of 2019
BETWEEN:   DAMON GENE GABLE
Plaintiff
AND
HONOURABLE JOHN QUIGLEY MLA LLB JP
First Defendant
WEST AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE t/as WEST AUSTRALIA POLICE SERVICE
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 20 r 19 - Strike out - Writ and statement of claim - No reasonable cause of action - Appeal from registrar - Incomprehensible pleadings

Legislation:

The District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 15
Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA), s 66, s 67, s 71
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 19(1)

Result:

The appeal be dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
First Defendant	:	Ms S J Keighery
Second Defendant	:	Ms S J Keighery

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
First Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office
Second Defendant	:	State Solicitor's Office

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

Culleton v Permanent Custodians Ltd [2018] WASC 251
Gable v Director of Public Prosecutions for WA [2019] WADC 104
Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP [2019] WADC 117
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338
Smart v Prisoner Review Board (WA) [2012] WASC 48
Stewart v Hames [2019] WASCA 127

BURROWS DCJ:

Background of proceedings

On 22 February 2019 the plaintiff Damon Gene Gable filed a writ of summons and statement of claim naming the Honourable John Quigley MLA LLB JP, West Australia Attorney General Office as first defendant and West Australia Police Service trading as West Australia Police Service as second defendant: CIV 708 of 2019.
Mr Gable's previous claim against these entities in CIV 3260 of 2018 was struck out on 6 November 2018 by Deputy Registrar Harman. An appeal against this decision heard before Braddock DCJ on 18 February 2019 was dismissed.[1]
[1] Gable v Director of Public Prosecutions for WA [2019] WADC 104.
On 13 March 2019 the State Solicitor's Office filed a memorandum of appearance for both defendants.
On 20 March 2019 the defendants filed a chamber summons seeking orders striking out the writ and statement of claim.
On 27 March 2019 the plaintiff filed a chamber summons. The plaintiff's application was heard at a special appointment before Registrar Kingsley on 29 March 2019. Registrar Kingsley made an order preserving the plaintiff's Nissan motor vehicle registration 1GAM 898 which is held by the Western Australian Police (preservation order).
On 8 May 2019 the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. The defendants maintained their strike‑out application.
On 8 August 2019 Deputy Registrar Hewitt heard the strike‑out application.
On 22 August 2019 the deputy registrar struck out the plaintiff's writ and statement of claim and dismissed the action.[2] He ordered that the preservation order be set aside unless the plaintiff filed an…

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 Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP

Details

AGLC: Gable v Quigley MLA LLB JP [2019] WADC 151
Case: [2019] WADC 151
Decision Date: 1 NOVEMBER 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Supreme Court of Western Australia involved Gable, the appellant, suing Quigley, the respondent. The matter was an appeal against a decision by the registrar to strike out Gable's writ and statement of claim. The basis of Gable's claim was against Quigley, who was a member of parliament, alleging defamation and breach of confidence. The registrar determined that the writ and statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and thus struck them out under Order 20 Rule 19 of the Supreme Court Rules 1971.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the registrar was correct in finding that Gable's writ and statement of claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. This involved an analysis of the sufficiency of the pleadings and whether they met the threshold of disclosing a cause of action that was not frivolous or vexatious. The court had to determine whether the pleadings were incomprehensible to the extent that a reasonable cause of action could not be discerned.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the writ and statement of claim were indeed incomprehensible. The pleadings were so poorly drafted and contained such a plethora of errors that it was impossible to ascertain any legal basis for the claims. The court emphasised that while it is not the role of the court to assist parties with the drafting of their pleadings, the pleadings in this case were beyond the pale of acceptable legal documents. The court concluded that the registrar was correct in striking out the writ and statement of claim. As a result, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that Gable's appeal against the decision of the registrar was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were to be borne by Gable. The writ and statement of claim were to remain struck out, and no further amendments were to be permitted.

Orders