Legal Research
Cases
Hughes v Fong

Hughes v Fong

Case [2016] NSWSC 1451 13 October 2016

Jurisdiction

Standing

Joinder of Parties

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	Hughes v Fong
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWSC 1451
Hearing Date(s):	10 October 2016
Date of Orders:	13 October 2016
Decision Date:	13 October 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Campbell J
Decision:	(1) The second defendant’s application to strike out the statement of claim as having been filed contrary to rule 6.19 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (2005) is dismissed; (2) Direct the parties to otherwise bring in short minutes of order giving effect to my reasons and for the future management of the proceedings; (3) I will hear counsel as to costs.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – adequacy of pleadings – multiple plaintiffs – whether joinder of 17 plaintiffs on the same statement of claim complies with the UPCR – where all parties in agreement that claims should travel together
Legislation Cited:	Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 157 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s 90 High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), O.16, r 1 Practice Note SC Gen 17 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 6.1, 14.28
Cases Cited:	ASIC v Sommerville [2008] NSWSC 788 Belcastro v Gabriel Nakhl & Ors [2014] NSWSC 1305 Berowra Holdings Limited v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364; [2006] HCA 32 Bishop v Bridgelands Securities (1990) 25 FCR 311 Carter v Commissioner of Taxation (2001) 109 FCR 215 Cheque One Pty Ltd v Cheque Exchange (Australia) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 593 Dean-Willcocks v Air Transit International Pty Ltd (2002) 55 NSWLR 64; [2002] NSWSC 525 Lloyd v Great Western Dairies Company [1907] 2 KB 727 Kirby v Sanderson Motors Pty Ltd (2001) 54 NSWLR 135; [2002] NSWCA 44 Marino v Esanda Ltd [1986] VR 735 McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424 O’Grady v North Queensland Co. Limited (1990) 169 CLR 356; [1990] HCA 16 Payne v Young (1980) 145 CLR 609; [1980] HCA 54 Workers’ Compensation Board of Queensland v Technical Products Pty Ltd (1988) 165 CLR 642; [1988] HCA 49
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Mark Hughes & 16 Ors (Plaintiff) Richard Michael Fong (First Defendant) Maguy Bernadette Nakhl (Second Defendant)
Representation:	I E Davidson SC with D Habashy (Plaintiff) T L Hollo (First Defendant); C Colquhoun (Second Defendant)
File Number(s):	2016/00029923

JUDGMENT

I am dealing with the second defendant’s notice of motion dated 27 June 2016 by which she applies to strike out the amended statement of claim filed on 1 June 2016 pursuant to r 14.28 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”). The second defendant and the plaintiffs commendably have reached agreement on two of three matters grounding the second defendant’s application. It is important to record that their agreement will require the plaintiff’s to re-plead in any event.
A similar application was brought by the first defendant but not on identical grounds. The parties have resolved the matter sought to be agitated by the first defendant. Again, their agreement requires the plaintiffs to re-plead.
What remains in…

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 Hughes v Fong

Details

AGLC: Hughes v Fong [2016] NSWSC 1451
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1451
Decision Date: 13 October 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hughes v Fong involved a number of plaintiffs seeking to recover damages for various causes of action against a single defendant. The plaintiffs, numbering seventeen in total, filed a single statement of claim against the defendant, Fong. The dispute centred around whether the joinder of multiple plaintiffs in a single statement of claim complied with the relevant procedural rules and if such a joinder was permissible when all parties agreed that the claims should proceed together. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court included whether the joinder of multiple plaintiffs in one statement of claim was appropriate under the Uniform Procedural Rules of the Federal Court and whether the statement of claim adequately set out the facts and causes of action for all plaintiffs. The court had to determine if the joinder met the procedural requirements and if the claims could be effectively managed within a single proceeding.

The court examined the procedural rules and noted that joinder of plaintiffs in a single proceeding was permissible if all parties agreed and if the claims shared common questions of law or fact. It was found that the statement of claim sufficiently outlined the individual claims and that the joinder did not prejudice any party's ability to present their case. The court concluded that the joinder was appropriate and compliant with the procedural rules. The court's decision was that the joinder of the seventeen plaintiffs on the same statement of claim was valid and that the claims could proceed together.

The court ordered that the proceeding could continue with the seventeen plaintiffs joined as parties in the single statement of claim, thereby allowing the claims to be heard together as agreed. This decision facilitated a more efficient and economical use of court resources while ensuring that all parties' rights were preserved.

Orders