Legal Research
Cases
Hamilton v Iles

Hamilton v Iles

Case [2018] WADC 90 3 August 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   HAMILTON -v- ILES [2018] WADC 90
CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE
HEARD:   6 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   3 AUGUST 2018
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2826 of 2017
BETWEEN:   JANIS CLARK MCCULLOCH HAMILTON
Plaintiff
AND
PAULINE FRANCES ILES
MICHAEL LINCOLN ILES
Defendants

Catchwords:

Application for leave to commence action in pending proceedings - Application to strike out - Application for summary judgment

Legislation:

Limitation Act 2005, s 15, s 40, s 44, s 79
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971

Result:

The statement of claim as against the first‑named defendant be struck out
Judgment for the second‑named defendant

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	In person
Defendants	:	Mr J P Wood

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Not applicable
Defendants	:	Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

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

Belgravia Nominees v Lowe Pty Ltd [2017] WASCA 127
Cordinup Resorts Pty Ltd v Terana Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 143 FLR 18
Donohue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87
Ibrahim v The Honourable Justice Carolyn Martin [2012] WASC 338
Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6114, 25 August 1986)
Kimberley Downs v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6114, 25 August 1986)
MacMahon Contractors Pty Ltd v CW-CG Pty Ltd [2017] WASC 211
Neil v Nott [1994] HCA 23
Niven v Grant (1903) 29 VLR 102
Rayney v The State of Western Australia [No3] [2010] WASC 83
Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35
Wardley Australia Ltd v Western Australia (Rothwells Loan case) [1992] HCA 55
Webster v Lampard (1993) 177 CLR 598
Wentworth v Rogers (No.5) (1986) NSWLR 534
White v Johnston (1886) 8 ALT 53
Wookey v Quigley [No 2] [2010] WASC 209

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE:

This action was commenced by a writ of summons that was filed on 3 August 2017. It was followed by a statement of claim and then on 15 November 2017 an amended statement of claim. Except in the broadest of senses, it is difficult to know from the amended statement of claim what the plaintiff wants and why. Broadly speaking the amended statement of claim seems to give rise to a separate claim against each of the defendants, who for ease of reference I will call Ms Iles and Mr Iles, the first being a claim for redress under 'Australian Human Rights Legislation (Bullying)' against Ms Iles, and secondly redress for defamation as a result of an allegation of libel under the 'Australian Defamation Law', against Mr Iles. The defendants now apply to strike out the case or alternatively obtain summary judgement.
It appears from what is alleged in the statement of claim and from what appears in the affidavit material filed in respect of the application that the plaintiff's mother was a resident at St Michael's Residential Care, which is an institution run by Iles Nominees Pty Ltd of which Ms Iles was a director and Mr Iles was a…

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 Hamilton v Iles

Details

AGLC: Hamilton v Iles [2018] WADC 90
Case: [2018] WADC 90
Decision Date: 3 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by the plaintiff, Hamilton, to commence proceedings against the defendant, Iles, in proceedings that were already before the court. The plaintiff sought to establish a cause of action against the defendant for an alleged breach of contract. The application was contested by the defendant, who sought to have the application struck out and also filed an application for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred. The court was required to consider the relevant limitation period for the breach of contract claim and determine whether the claim had been brought within that period. The court also needed to consider the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's application and whether there were any grounds to do so. Finally, the court had to decide whether the defendant's application for summary judgment was appropriate.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred and dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiff's application. The court held that the defendant had not provided any grounds to strike out the application and that the plaintiff had a valid cause of action. The court also found that the defendant's application for summary judgment was premature, as there were still issues to be determined in the proceedings. The court dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment and allowed the plaintiff's application to commence proceedings.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's application to commence proceedings be granted and that the defendant's application to strike out be dismissed. The court also ordered that the defendant's application for summary judgment be dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred and that there were still issues to be determined in the proceedings. The court did not make any orders regarding the limitation period or the merits of the claim.

Orders