JDT v PDL (No 2)

Case [2022] QDC 147

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147

PARTIES:

JDT

(applicant/plaintiff)

v

PDL

(respondent/defendant)

FILE NO:

D105/2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Maroochydore District Court

DELIVERED ON:

24 June 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore District Court

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2022
JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.   The defendant has leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, with leave to re-plead.

2.   The plaintiff pay 50% of the defendant’s costs of the application, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

3.   The plaintiff is to file and serve any further amended statement of claim, on or before 8/7/22.

4.   The defendant is to make any request for particulars, on or before 22/7/22.

5.   The plaintiff is to file and serve any further particulars, on or before 29/7/22.

6.   The defendant is to file and serve any further amended defence, on or before 5/8/22.

7.   The plaintiff is to file and serve any further reply, on or before 19/8/22.

8.   Any copy of the judgments of the Court upon this interlocutory application are to be published on the Court’s website in a format which anonymises any reference to the parties and redacts any reference to their addresses, school, place of employment and any other particular likely to lead to the identification of each of them.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – Anonymisation – Applicant sought to have name anonymised in published reasons – where it is a fundamental function of the Court to be conducted in an open and public way – Where the Court has an implied power to regulate its processes – Whether it is in the interests of justice that interlocutory judgments be published on the Court’s website in a redacted form.

PROCEDURE – Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – where paragraphs of the defendant’s defence are non-compliant with UCPR 166(4) – Where there are therefore deemed admissions as to the plaintiff’s pleading pursuant to UCPR 166(5) – Whether the defendant ought to be granted leave to withdraw the deemed admissions and re-plead her defence.

PROCEDURE – Referral to mediation – Where it is premature to refer the matter to mediation in light of further directions relating to pleadings which are yet to be satisfied.

PROCEDURE – Costs – Where defendant sought 75% of the costs of the application be payable by the plaintiff – where the plaintiff sought costs of the application be costs in proceeding – Where, in the case of mixed success, the pragmatic view is that the plaintiff is to pay 50% of the defendant’s costs of the application.

LEGISLATION:

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) s 43
Coal Mining Safety and Health Regulation 2001 (Qld) s 52(1)
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1978 (Qld) ss 3, 4, 4A, 5, 6, 7, 10, 10A
District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) ss 8, 126
Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld)…

Continue reading JDT v PDL (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
JDT v PDL (No 2) [2022] QDC 147
Case
[2022] QDC 147
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of JDT v PDL (No 2) involved the parties seeking various orders in the context of an ongoing legal dispute. The applicant sought to have their name anonymised in the published reasons of the Court, as well as to address non-compliance with certain procedural rules and the potential withdrawal of deemed admissions. The defendant, on the other hand, opposed the applicant's requests and sought to have the deemed admissions withdrawn and re-pleaded. Additionally, the parties discussed the referral of the matter to mediation and the allocation of costs associated with the application.

The key legal issues in the case centred around the Court's power to regulate its processes and the implications of non-compliance with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The applicant argued that the Court's conclusions on the pleadings issues should result in the deeming of admissions in respect of certain allegations made in the statement of claim. The defendant, however, contended that the Court's ruling did not engage the operation of UCPR 166(5) and that the applicant was largely unsuccessful in obtaining any ruling on the pleadings issues. Furthermore, the defendant sought leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of certain paragraphs of the defence and to re-plead. The parties also disagreed on the appropriateness of referring the matter to mediation at that stage and the allocation of costs associated with the application.

In reaching its decision, the Court first considered the effect of its conclusions on the deemed admissions arising from the defence filed in the substantive proceeding. The Court found that the applicant was largely unsuccessful in obtaining any ruling engaging the operation of UCPR 166(5) and therefore the effect of deeming admission of any allegation made in the statement of claim, except in respect of subparagraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence. The Court also noted that the defendant should be given leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of those subparagraphs, with leave to re-plead, provided that detailed particulars of the issues the defendant would raise at trial were provided. Finally, the Court determined that the plaintiff should pay 50% of the defendant's costs of the application, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

The Court ordered that the defendant has leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, with leave to re-plead. The plaintiff was ordered to pay 50% of the defendant's costs of the application, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis. The Court also directed that the plaintiff is to file and serve any further amended statement of claim by 8 July 2022, the defendant is to make any request for particulars by 22 July 2022, the plaintiff is to file and serve any further particulars by 29 July 2022, the defendant is to file and serve any further amended defence by 5 August 2022, and the plaintiff is to file and serve any further reply by 19 August 2022. Lastly, the Court directed that any copy of the judgments of the Court upon this interlocutory application are to be published on the Court's website in a format which anonymises any reference to the parties and redacts any reference to their addresses, school, place of employment and any other particular likely to lead to the identification of each of them.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1. The defendant has leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence, with leave to re-plead.

2. The plaintiff pay 50% of the defendant’s costs of the application, as agreed or assessed on the standard basis.

AND THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

3. The plaintiff is to file and serve any further amended statement of claim, on or before 8/7/22.

4. The defendant is to make any request for particulars, on or before 22/7/22.

5. The plaintiff is to file and serve any further particulars, on or before 29/7/22.

6. The defendant is to file and serve any further amended defence, on or before 5/8/22.

7. The plaintiff is to file and serve any further reply, on or before 19/8/22.

8. Any copy of the judgments of the Court upon this interlocutory application are to be published on the Court’s website in a format which anonymises any reference to the parties and redacts any reference to their addresses, school, place of employment and any other particular likely to lead to the identification of each of them.

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

In consequence of the Court’s conclusions and reasons being provided to the parties in advance in draft form, which included the intimation that the parties would be heard as to the necessary orders and directions in the light of the Court’s ruling, further issues have arisen as to the appropriate orders and directions. As was noted in the final paragraph of the published reasons, that approach was considered appropriate in the light of “the limited nature of the success of the applicant” in the application and “with a view to the appropriate and efficient progress of this litigation and any consequential orders”. However, the further issues which have arisen include some which extend beyond being necessarily consequential to the determination of the application and in some instances without formal, as opposed to effectively oral application. Nevertheless, the parties have engaged in providing some submissions as to all issues.The effect of the Court’s conclusions The first issue is as to the effect of the Court’s conclusions as to any deemed admission arising from the defence filed in the substantive proceeding. As was noted in the reasons published on 19 April 2022, the ultimate conclusion on the pleadings issues was a ruling that:“… each of the sub-paragraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence filed 13 September 2021, does not comply with the requirements of r 166(4) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.” The applicant’s contention is that the reasoning set out at paragraphs [16], [17] and [25] of the reasons “would also appear to support” an order that each of paragraphs 3, 5 and 7 of the defence, also do not comply with UCPR 166(4), is not to be accepted. As contended for the respondent and consistently with the ruling noted upon those reasons, the true effect of the published reasons is that the applicant was largely unsuccessful in obtaining any ruling engaging the operation of UCPR 166(5) and therefore the effect of deeming admission of any allegation made in the statement of claim, except in respect of subparagraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the defence. As is correctly contended for the respondent to conclude otherwise would be inconsistent with the findings of the Court as set out in paragraphs [18], [19], [24], [25] and [30] of the reasons. In the circumstances, the applicant’s contention is untenable, at least in the absence of any, unmade, application to reopen or to rehear these issues. It is to be further noted that the applicant has foreshadowed an intention to file a further amended statement of claim and proposes directions setting timeframes for that and for the respondent to file any further amended defence. However, there is dispute as to whether the respondent should, now, be given leave to withdraw the deemed admissions in respect of subparagraphs 4(c), 6(c) and 8(c) of the extant defence, with leave to replead. The applicant points to the observations in Ridolfi v Regato Farms Pty Ltd, as follows:“In my view a clear explanation on oath should be given as to how and why the admission came to be made and then detailed particulars given of the issue or issues which the party would raise at trial if the admission was withdrawn.”[1] Relevantly for present purposes the applicant’s submissions continue:“It may be accepted that the defendant’s deemed admissions arose because her lawyers did not realise that the manner of response did not comply with the requirements of r 166(4), but the proposed order ignores the important requirement that admissions are not withdrawn just for the asking; that detailed particulars need to be given of the issue or issues which the Defendant would raise at trial if the admissions were withdrawn. That usually requires a draft of the proposed amended pleading.”[2][1][2001] 2 Qd R 455 at [32].[2]Applicant’s further written submissions filed 19/4/22, at 2.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.