Gregson v Dovell Investments Pty Ltd - [2000] QDC 248

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Gregson v. Dovell Investments Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 248

PARTIES: PETER GREGSON (Plaintiff)
v.
DOVELL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD (Defendant)

FILE NO/S: Plaint 1617 of 1999

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 18 August 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 28 July 2000

JUDGE: Samios DCJ

ORDER:

CATCHWORDS:
PRACTICE – amendment – parties to actions – leave to substitute defendant and amend plaint after limitation period expired

Bridge Shipping Pty Ltd v.Grand Shipping S.A. & Anor (1991) 173 CLR 231
Mannin Pty Ltd v. Metal Roofing and Cladding Pty Ltd (1997) NTSC 119
Bellis v. The Queensland Corrective Services Commission (Writ 940/94, Writ 3347/97, unreported, 6 November 1998, Mackenzie J)
Draney v. Barry (1999) QCA 491
Jerome v. Hill (No. 54332 of 1998, unreported, 26 April 2000, Mackenzie J)

COUNSEL: Mr. Gray for the applicant
Mr. Holyoak for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Hatzis & Associates for the applicant
O’Maras Lawyers for the respondent

By a plaint filed in this court on 28 April 1999, the plaintiff claimed against Dovell Investments Pty Ltd (Dovell) damages for personal injuries the plaintiff alleged he suffered on 2 May 1996.

In the plaint, the plaintiff alleged that Dovell was the registered proprietor of premises situated at Corner Pacific Highway and Murrays Road, Loganholme in the State of Queensland, Dovell carried on business as a Caltex Service Station at those premises, Dovell was the occupier of those premises, the plaintiff was a contractual entrant upon the premises in his capacity as a customer of Dovell, and Dovell owed him a contractual duty and a duty of care to ensure the premises were as safe for the intended purpose of entry as reasonable care and skill on the part of anyone could make them. Further, the plaintiff alleged that on 2 May 1996 between 6 p.m. and about 6.45 p.m. he had filled his motor vehicle with petrol, he was entering the shop at the premises to pay for fuel and as he was entering the shop he slipped and fell on a mat or tile situated at the entrance of the shop, thereby suffering personal injury, loss and damage. The plaintiff alleged this incident was caused by the negligence and/or breach of contract by Dovell, its agents and/or employees.

On 31 March 2000 the plaintiff filed this application seeking pursuant to r.376 an order allowing an amendment to the plaint to provide that Dovell be replaced with Maggshire Pty Ltd and that para. 2(b) of the plaint be amended to show the defendant was the registered proprietor of premises situated at 1/5 Leda Drive, Shailer Park in lieu of the premises situated on the Pacific Highway and Murrays Road, Loganholme.

When the application first came on for hearing before me on 23 June 2000, the plaintiff in support of his application relied upon two affidavits by Mr. Campbell, a solicitor in the employee of Hatzis & Associates, Solicitors, filed herein on 31 March 2000 and 30 May 2000.

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 Gregson v Dovell Investments Pty Ltd 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: [2000] QDC 248
Decision Date: 18 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, the case of Gregson v Dovell Investments Pty Ltd addressed a dispute involving the amendment of a plaintiff's claim after the limitation period had expired and the substitution of a party to the action. The plaintiff, Gregson, sought to amend his original complaint, which was filed beyond the statutory time limit, and to substitute the original defendant, Dovell Investments Pty Ltd, with a new defendant, the plaintiff's former solicitor, who allegedly had acted on behalf of the original defendant. The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff could amend the complaint after the limitation period and whether it was appropriate to substitute the original defendant with the plaintiff's former solicitor.

The legal issues at hand were twofold: firstly, whether the plaintiff could amend his claim after the statutory limitation period had elapsed; and secondly, whether it was appropriate to substitute the original defendant with the plaintiff's former solicitor. The court considered the principles of procedural fairness, the availability of remedies under the law, and the specific circumstances of the case in reaching its decision. The court also examined whether there were any exceptional circumstances that warranted allowing the amendment and substitution.

The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to amend his claim after the limitation period had expired, as this would contravene the principles of procedural fairness and the statutory provisions governing limitation periods. The court further found that the substitution of the original defendant with the plaintiff's former solicitor was not appropriate, as the former solicitor had not been a party to the original proceedings and could not be held liable for the alleged actions of the original defendant. The court determined that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the limitation period and that the proposed amendment and substitution were not justified under the circumstances. Consequently, the plaintiff's application to amend the complaint and substitute the defendant was dismissed.

In summary, the court denied the plaintiff's application to amend the complaint and substitute the defendant, finding that the amendment and substitution were not permissible after the limitation period had expired and in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the principles of procedural fairness in legal proceedings. The plaintiff's claim was ultimately dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders