HUNDT -v- SLATER & GORDON & ORS [2003] WASC 248

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASC 248
Case No:	CIV:2620/2002	Heard:	24 NOVEMBER 2003
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	15/12/03
No of pages:	11	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Extension of time granted Statement of claim struck out
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ROBYN HUNDT SLATER & GORDON PETER GORDON STEPHEN PLUNKETT PAUL HENDERSON NICHOLIS STYANT-BROWNE PAUL MULVANY ANDREW GRECH
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for extension of time to bring strike-out application Application to strike out statement of claim Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232 Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 178 ALR 577 Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 472 Bond v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] WASC 336 Bruce v Odhams Press Pty Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697 Byrne v Twaddle & Anor [2001] WASC 325 Chandler & Ors v Water Corporation [2001] WASC 166 Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v SDAE of WA (1987) 13 FCR 413 Darvall McCutcheon (A Firm) v HK Frost Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2002] VSCA 85 Davy v Garrett (1877) 7 Ch D 473 Knowles v Robert (1888) 38 Ch D 263 Rassam v Budge [1893] 1 QB 71 Ron Hodgson (Trading) Pty Ltd v Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 472

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : HUNDT -v- SLATER & GORDON & ORS [2003] WASC 248 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 24 NOVEMBER 2003 DELIVERED : 15 DECEMBER 2003 FILE NO/S : CIV 2620 of 2002

Consolidated with CIV 1485 of 2002

BETWEEN : ROBYN HUNDT

Plaintiff

AND

SLATER & GORDON

First Defendant

PETER GORDON

STEPHEN PLUNKETT

PAUL HENDERSON

NICHOLIS STYANT-BROWNE

PAUL MULVANY

ANDREW GRECH

Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for extension of time to bring strike-out application - Application to strike out statement of claim - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Extension of time granted

Statement of claim struck out

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr A O Karstaedte

First Defendant : Ms F A E Davies

Second Defendants : Ms F A E Davies

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bradford & Co

First Defendant : Phillips Fox

Second Defendants : Phillips Fox

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

Chappel v Hart (1998) 195 CLR 232
Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479
Rosenberg v Percival (2001) 178 ALR 577

Case(s) also cited:

Belvedere Motors (Hurstville) Pty Ltd [1971] 1 NSWLR 472
Bond v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd & Anor [2001] WASC 336
Bruce v Odhams Press Pty Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697
Byrne v Twaddle & Anor [2001] WASC 325
Chandler & Ors v Water Corporation [2001] WASC 166
Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v SDAE of WA (1987) 13 FCR 413

(Page 3)

Darvall McCutcheon (A Firm) v HK Frost Holdings Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2002] VSCA 85
Davy v…

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 Hundt v Slater & Gordon

Details

AGLC: Hundt v Slater & Gordon [2003] WASC 248
Case: [2003] WASC 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robyn Hundt brought an action against Slater & Gordon and others, seeking damages for personal injuries suffered from breast implants. The defendants applied for an extension of time to bring a strike-out application and to strike out the statement of claim. The court identified the main issues as the clarity and adequacy of the pleadings, particularly concerning the involvement of Slater & Gordon Melbourne, the surgeon's alleged breach of duty, and the claims against the manufacturing companies and the law firms. The court found the pleadings to be confusing and inadequate, lacking clear facts to support the allegations of agency, duty, breach, and causation. The court granted the application for an extension of time and struck out the statement of claim, allowing the plaintiff to re-plead. The court emphasised that while the plaintiff could plead a valid cause of action, the defendants were entitled to a coherent pleading to respond to. The court would hear the parties regarding the form of orders and costs.

Orders