BEAU TIMOTHY JOHN HARTNETT (plaintiff/applicant) v ROBERT MARK HYNES (defendant/respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BS 7747 of 2007
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
11 August 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 June 2009 Supplementary written submissions 7 August 2009
JUDGE:
Applegarth J
ORDER:
On the application for leave to amend: 1. The plaintiff be granted leave to file and serve an amended claim and a third amended statement of claim in a form to be prepared in draft by the plaintiff in accordance with these reasons for judgment, delivered to the defendant and reviewed by Applegarth J at a further review of the matter; 2. The parties prepare draft minutes of order including orders as to costs; 3. The parties prepare draft minutes of order in relation to the completion of interlocutory steps and the preparation of the matter for trial. 4. The application be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the making of further orders, including orders as to costs.
On the application for disclosure and inspection: 1. The application regarding disclosure and inspection filed 22 May 2009 is dismissed. 2. There be no order as to costs in relation to the application.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the plaintiff seeks to amend his claim and statement of claim – where leave is required to amend – whether leave should be granted
PROCEDURE – COSTS – DEPARTING FROM THE GENERAL RULE – CONDUCT OF PARTIES – where application for disclosure and inspection resolved – whether the applicant acted reasonably in bringing the application – whether the respondent acted reasonably in resisting it
Partnership Act1891 (Qld), s 27(1)(i) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 5(1), r 5(2), r 5(3), r 5(4), r 149, r 157, r 171(1)(b), r 375, r 376(4), r 377, r 379, r 386, r 444
[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 Hartnett v Hynes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Hartnett v Hynes [2009] QSC 225
Case
[2009] QSC 225
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The parties to this case are Hartnett, the plaintiff, and Hynes, the defendant. The dispute concerns the plaintiff's attempts to amend his claim and statement of claim, as well as the defendant's application for disclosure and inspection. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend his claim and statement of claim. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff had acted reasonably in bringing the application for disclosure and inspection, and whether the defendant had acted reasonably in resisting it.
The court considered the relevant rules of court concerning pleading and amendments. It examined the conduct of both parties in relation to the application for disclosure and inspection. The court found that the plaintiff's application for amendment was reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the need for fairness and justice. The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend his claim and statement of claim, subject to certain conditions. Regarding the application for disclosure and inspection, the court found that both parties had acted reasonably, and dismissed the application without ordering costs.
In its judgment, the court ordered that the plaintiff be granted leave to file and serve an amended claim and a third amended statement of claim. The court also directed the parties to prepare draft minutes of order, including orders as to costs. The application was adjourned to a later date for further orders, including those relating to costs. The application for disclosure and inspection was dismissed, and no costs were ordered in relation to it.
Orders
Orders of the court
On the application for leave to amend:
1. The plaintiff be granted leave to file and serve an amended claim and a third amended statement of claim in a form to be prepared in draft by the plaintiff in accordance with these reasons for judgment, delivered to the defendant and reviewed by Applegarth J at a further review of the matter;
2. The parties prepare draft minutes of order including orders as to costs;
3. The parties prepare draft minutes of order in relation to the completion of interlocutory steps and the preparation of the matter for trial.
4. The application be adjourned to a date to be fixed for the making of further orders, including orders as to costs.
On the application for disclosure and inspection:
1. The application regarding disclosure and inspection filed 22 May 2009 is dismissed.
2. There be no order as to costs in relation to the application.