Greene v McIver

Case [2012] QSC 181

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Greene v McIver & Ors [2012] QSC 181

PARTIES:

GEOFFREY WILLIAM GREENE

(plaintiff)

v

BRUCE McIVER

(first defendant)

and

ANTHONY ABBOTT

(second defendant)

and

PETER JOHN BASTON

(third defendant)

and

DARREN BLACK

(fourth defendant)

and

TOM BRENNAN

(fifth defendant)

and

BRUCE DUNCAN

(sixth defendant)

and

WARREN GEORGE ENTSCH

(seventh defendant)

and

DARYL FENNELL

(eight defendant)

and

GRAHAM DOUGLAS HEILBRONN

(ninth defendant)

and

VICKI HOWARD

(tenth defendant)

and

LENORE ANN JOHNSTONE

(eleventh defendant)

and

JOHN-PAUL HONORE LANGBROEK

(twelfth defendant)

and

HELEN McALLISTER

(thirteenth defendant)

and

ANN McKENZIE

(fourteenth defendant)

and

JANE McNAMARA

(fifteenth defendant)

and

NICHOLAS MARC ANTHONY MONSOUR

(sixteenth defendant)

and

BRENDAN NELSON

(seventeenth defendant)

and

GREG NEWTON

(eighteenth defendant)

and

LLEWELLYN STEPHEN O’BRIEN

(nineteenth defendant)

and

BARRY O’SULLIVAN

(twentieth defendant)

and

GRAHAM QUIRK

(twenty-first defendant)

and

RUSSELL JOHN SCHROTER

(twenty-second defendant)

and

ISAAC JOHN JOSEPH SCOTT

(twenty-third defendant)

and

JEFFREY SEENEY

(twenty-fourth defendant)

and

LAWRENCE JAMES SPRINGBORG

(twenty-fifth defendant)

and

FRASER SAMUEL STEPHEN

(twenty-sixth defendant)

and

GARY SPENCE

(twenty-seventh defendant)

and

ALAN STOCKDALE

(twenty-eighth defendant)

and

TRENT NATHAN TWOMEY

(twenty-ninth defendant)

and

IAN WALKER

(thirtieth defendant)

and

PATRICK WEIR

(thirty-first defendant)

and

BERNARD PONTING

(thirty-second defendant)

and

DAVID RUSSELL

(thirty-third defendant)

and

SUSAN McDONALD

(thirty-fourth defendant)

and

BEN RILEY

(thirty-fifth defendant)

and

RICHARD WILLIAMS

(thirty-sixth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS4623/11

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

26 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2012

JUDGE:

Margaret Wilson J

ORDER:

That, as against the first, twentieth, twenty-seventhand thirty-second defendants,

i) paragraph 46 of the second amended statement of claim be amended by the deletion of “paragraphs 35 – 40F” and the substitution of “paragraphs 35 – 36”;     (

(ii)the words “as between the LNP and its members, asbetween members of the LNP or” be struck out of paragraph 49 of the second amended statement of claim;                 

(iii)paragraphs 60, 61, 62 and 63 and Schedule 2 of the second amended statement of claim be struck out, and the plaintiff have leave to replead only losses which he has personally suffered;   

(iv)paragraphs 12 and 12A of the prayer for relief in the second amended statement of claim be struck out and the plaintiff have leave to insert reformulated claims.   

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – STRIKING OUT OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM – RULE 171 UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 1999 (QLD) – where plaintiff, by his second amended statement of claim, seeks various remedies against members of an unincorporated association – whether second amended statement of claim or certain paragraphs thereof should be struck out pursuant to rule 171 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (Cth)
Electoral Act 1992 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171

Baldwin v Everingham [1993] 1 Qd R 10 at 20, cited.
Cameron v Hogan (1934) 51 CLR 358, cited.
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62, cited.
Edgar and Walker v…

Continue reading Greene v McIver

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Greene v McIver [2012] QSC 181
Case
[2012] QSC 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Greene v McIver, the parties involved in the dispute were the plaintiff, Mr. Greene, and the defendants, including members of an unincorporated association. The plaintiff sought various remedies against the defendants through his second amended statement of claim. The nature of the dispute centred around the validity and scope of the claims made in the second amended statement of claim, particularly in relation to certain paragraphs and the entities against whom the claims were directed. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the second amended statement of claim, or specific paragraphs within it, should be struck out under Rule 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). This involved examining the sufficiency and propriety of the plaintiff's claims, as well as the relevance of the defendants named in the statement of claim. The court had to determine whether certain claims were too vague, misdirected, or sought relief that was not personally applicable to the plaintiff.

In reaching its decision, the court analysed the content of the second amended statement of claim in detail. It found that certain paragraphs were either misdirected, overly broad, or sought relief that the plaintiff was not personally entitled to. Consequently, the court ordered specific amendments to the statement of claim, including the deletion of certain paragraphs and the striking out of others. The plaintiff was granted leave to replead certain claims, with the requirement to focus on losses personally suffered. The court also required the plaintiff to reformulate parts of the prayer for relief to align with the permissible scope of the claims.

The final orders of the court included detailed amendments to the second amended statement of claim, as well as the striking out of certain paragraphs and parts of the prayer for relief. The plaintiff was permitted to replead certain claims with specified limitations to ensure the claims were narrowly tailored to his personal losses and properly directed against the appropriate defendants.

Orders

Orders of the court

That, as against the first, twentieth, twenty-seventhand thirty-second defendants,

i) paragraph 46 of the second amended statement of claim be amended by the deletion of “paragraphs 35 – 40F” and the substitution of “paragraphs 35 – 36”; (

(ii)the words “as between the LNP and its members, asbetween members of the LNP or” be struck out of paragraph 49 of the second amended statement of claim;

(iii)paragraphs 60, 61, 62 and 63 and Schedule 2 of the second amended statement of claim be struck out, and the plaintiff have leave to replead only losses which he has personally suffered;

(iv)paragraphs 12 and 12A of the prayer for relief in the second amended statement of claim be struck out and the plaintiff have leave to insert reformulated claims.

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.