Gillies v Eastlake - [2014] NSWSC 611

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gillies v Eastlake [2014] NSWSC 611
Hearing dates: 26/02/2014
Decision date: 30 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Garling J
Decision:
(1) Statement of Claim filed 9 December 2013 be, and hereby is, summarily dismissed.
(2) Notice of Motion filed by defendants on 22 January 2014 is otherwise dismissed.
(3) Notice of Motion filed by the plaintiff on 28 January 2014 is dismissed.
(4) Order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the whole proceedings including the Notices of Motion.

Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - civil - summary disposal - dismissal - three causes of action - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005; r 13.4 - frivolous and vexatious proceedings - discretionary exercise - whether reasonable cause of action - whether abuse of process

PROCEDURE - civil - summary disposal - dismissal - expiration of limitation period - Limitation Act 1969 - whether extension of time could be granted

PROCEDURE - civil - summary disposal - dismissal - bankruptcy - discharged bankrupt - whether causes of action vested in the Official Trustee
PROCEDURE - civil - summary disposal - dismissed - Statement of Claim bad in form - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005; r 14.28
Legislation Cited: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Limitation Act 1969
Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; (2000) 201 CLR 552
Burton v Bairnsdale Shire [1908] HCA 57; (1908) 7 CLR 76
Cummings v Claremont Petroleum NL [1996] HCA 19; (1996) 185 CLR 124
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Limited [1983] HCA 25; (1983) 154 CLR 87
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Giles v The Commonwealth of Australia [2014] NSWSC 83
Gye v McIntyre [1991] HCA 60; (1991) 171 CLR 609
Nyssen v Minerva Centre Ltd (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 112
Pridmore v Magenta Nominees Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 152; (1999) 161 ALR 458
Rogers v Asset Loan Co Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 434
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; (2010) 241 CLR 18
Stone v ACE-IRM Insurance Broking Pty Ltd [2003] QCA 218; [2004] 1 Qd R 173
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 175 CLR 514
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Darrin Michael Gillies (P)
Lisa Leanne Eastlake (D1)
Malcolm Terry Coombes (D2)
Representation: Counsel:
In person (P)
R Brook (D1 & D2)
Solicitors:
In person (P)
Newcastle Legal (D1 & D2)

File Number(s): 2013/370090

Judgment

On 9 December 2013, Darrin Michael Gillies, the plaintiff, commenced proceedings by a Statement of Claim in which he claimed the following relief:

"1. The plaintiff claims $4 M in damages in respect to the unlawful caveats registered against the plaintiff's properties by the first defendant.

2. The plaintiff claims $15,000 in respect of the Court order made in favour of the plaintiff…

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 Gillies v Eastlake 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: [2014] NSWSC 611
Decision Date: 30 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case are Gillies and Eastlake. The dispute revolves around three causes of action, which Gillies brought against Eastlake. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to decide whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, whether there was reasonable cause of action, and whether there had been an abuse of process. Additionally, the court had to determine if the limitation period had expired, if an extension of time could be granted, and whether the causes of action vested in the Official Trustee due to Eastlake's bankruptcy.

The court carefully examined the Statement of Claim and found it to be bad in form, in accordance with rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The court also considered whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious under rule 13.4 of the same rules, exercising its discretion in this matter. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the limitation period had expired and if an extension of time could be granted under the Limitation Act 1969. Finally, the court looked into whether the causes of action vested in the Official Trustee due to Eastlake's bankruptcy and discharge.

The court found that the proceedings were frivolous and vexatious, and there was no reasonable cause of action. It was also determined that there had been an abuse of process. Additionally, the limitation period had expired, and no extension of time could be granted. Finally, the court held that the causes of action did not vest in the Official Trustee as Eastlake had been discharged from bankruptcy. As a result, the court dismissed the case.

The court ordered that Gillies pay Eastlake's costs of the application, and the case was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders