Hutchins v Robinson - [2012] QSC 411

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Hutchins v Robinson and Ors [2012] QSC 411

PARTIES:

FU-MEI HUTCHINS
(Plaintiff)
v
MICHAEL GERARD ROBINSON
(First Defendant)
and
SECURCORP LIMITED ACN 088 919 377
(Second Defendant)
and
DESMOND MARK NIALL
(Third Defendant)
and
LESTER JOHN HUGHES
(Fourth Defendant)
and
AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY
ABN 67 007 483 267 TRADING AS CHARTIS

(Third Party)

FILE NO/S:

BS 3767 of 2011

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

On the papers

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

17 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Written submissions on 6 September 2012 (for the plaintiff) and 2 October 2012 (for the defendants)

JUDGE:

Philip McMurdo J

ORDER:

1. The application to join Desmond Mark Niall and Lester John Hughes as defendants and to amend the statement of claim according to the draft submitted on 6 September 2012 is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants of that application.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the plaintiff applies for leave to amend its statement of claim to join two further defendants and to plead several further points - where the defendants oppose the application and claim that the pleading is deficient and pleads no cause of action against the proposed new defendants – whether there are sufficient grounds to give leave to allow the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim

Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12DA
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601FC, S 601FD, s 761GA, s 1041E
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 150

COUNSEL:

A Narayan for the plaintiff

G Handran for the defendants and proposed third and fourth defendants

SOLICITORS:

Arcuri Lawyers for the plaintiff

Tucker and Cowan for the defendants and proposed third and further defendants

The plaintiff applies to join two further defendants and to amend her statement of claim to plead her case against them and in some other respects. The present defendants oppose the application upon the argument that the proposed pleading against the new defendants is deficient in several respects and does not plead a cause of action against them. Many of the criticisms which are made of the proposed pleading would be relevant also to the case as it is presently pleaded against the existing defendants, although there is no application to strike out the present pleading.

The plaintiff’s present and proposed claims arise from two investments which she made with the second defendant (“the company”), in which she lost all of the funds invested. The first was the so-called Altitude Tower Investment, in which she paid to the company $2 million in July 2007, for that sum to be part of a loan by the company for a property development. The second investment was made in April 2008, when she paid to the company the sum of $1.27 million, which…

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 Hutchins v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Hutchins v Robinson and Ors [2012] QSC 411
Case: [2012] QSC 411
Decision Date: 17 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hutchins v Robinson, the plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim to include two additional defendants, Desmond Mark Niall and Lester John Hughes, and to incorporate several new points. The defendants opposed the application, asserting that the proposed pleading was insufficient and did not establish a cause of action against the new defendants. The court was tasked with determining whether there were adequate grounds to permit the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff had demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant leave to amend the statement of claim and whether the proposed new defendants were appropriately joined and if the new points pleaded constituted a valid cause of action. The court considered the criteria for amendment under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and the principles governing the addition of defendants and new causes of action.

The court held that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the amendment of the statement of claim. It found that the proposed new defendants were not adequately connected to the existing cause of action, and the new points pleaded did not form a valid cause of action. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to join the new defendants and amend the statement of claim. Additionally, the plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the first and second defendants associated with the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to join Desmond Mark Niall and Lester John Hughes as defendants and to amend the statement of claim according to the draft submitted on 6 September 2012 is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants of that application.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hutchins v Robinson and Ors [2012] QSC 411
PARTIES:	FU-MEI HUTCHINS (Plaintiff) v MICHAEL GERARD ROBINSON (First Defendant) and SECURCORP LIMITED ACN 088 919 377 (Second Defendant) and DESMOND MARK NIALL (Third Defendant) and LESTER JOHN HUGHES (Fourth Defendant) and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY ABN 67 007 483 267 TRADING AS CHARTIS (Third Party)
FILE NO/S:	BS 3767 of 2011
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	On the papers
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	17 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	Written submissions on 6 September 2012 (for the plaintiff) and 2 October 2012 (for the defendants)
JUDGE:	Philip McMurdo J
ORDER:	1. The application to join Desmond Mark Niall and Lester John Hughes as defendants and to amend the statement of claim according to the draft submitted on 6 September 2012 is dismissed. 2. The plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants of that application.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the plaintiff applies for leave to amend its statement of claim to join two further defendants and to plead several further points - where the defendants oppose the application and claim that the pleading is deficient and pleads no cause of action against the proposed new defendants – whether there are sufficient grounds to give leave to allow the plaintiff to amend its statement of claim Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001 (Cth), s 12DA Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 601FC, S 601FD, s 761GA, s 1041E Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 150
COUNSEL:	A Narayan for the plaintiff G Handran for the defendants and proposed third and fourth defendants
SOLICITORS:	Arcuri Lawyers for the plaintiff Tucker and Cowan for the defendants and proposed third and further defendants