Jennings v Jennings - [2025] QDC 13

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Jennings & Anor v Jennings [2025] QDC 13

PARTIES:
JASMIN NICOLE JENNINGS

(First Plaintiff) And

J JENNINGS SERVICES PTY LTD
(Second Plaintiff)
v
ALISHA LOUISE JENNINGS

(defendant)

FILENO: BD No 3047/24

DIVISION: Civil

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 26 February 2025

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 2 December 2024

JUDGE: Sheridan JDC

ORDER:
1.   Paragraphs 16 to 20 and 22 and (paragraph 4 of the claim for relief) in the amended statement of claim, and paragraph 4 of the claim are struck out.

2.   Application for leave to amend claim is refused.

3.   If either party wishes to make submissions as to costs:

a.   the plaintiffs are to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Monday 3 March 2025;

b.   the defendant is to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Thursday 6 March 2025; and

c.   the plaintiffs are to file submissions in reply, if any, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00pm Monday 10 March 2025.

4.   Orders as to costs will be made on Wednesday 12 March 2025 unless there is a consent order as to costs filed before that date.

CATCHWORDS:
LEGISLATION:

PRACTICE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT –

OTHER CASES AND MATTERS – where the defendant seeks to strike out a cause of action – whether the tort of interference with business by unlawful means is recognised in Australia – whether the cause of action should be struck out

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(a)

CASES:

Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426

Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith (1966) 120 CLR 145 Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] ACTSC 20; (2010) 173 ACTR 33
Deepcliffe P/L & Anor v The Council of the City of the Gold Coast & Anor [2001] QCA 342
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern (No 3) [2010] WASC 403
Northern Territory of Australia and Others v Mengel and Others (1995) 185 CLR 307

Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 2) [2012] FCA 1477

OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1
Polar Aviation v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2011) 203 FCR; [2011] FCA 1126
Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and Others (2011) 280 ALR 503
Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329

Sheridan & Ors v Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 440

The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2006] 1 Qd R 307
Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181

COUNSEL:

Amerena LV for the defendant/applicant

SOLICITORS:

Kronberg PA, solicitor with Ryan Murdoch O’Regan Lawyers for the plaintiffs/respondents

Fit Lawyers for the defendant/applicant

Introduction

This is an application by the defendant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jennings v Jennings and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QDC 13
Decision Date: 26 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jennings v Jennings is a matter before the court involving a dispute between the parties over allegations of interference with business by unlawful means. The court was asked to consider whether this tort is recognised in Australia and, if so, whether the cause of action should be struck out. The court had to determine the validity of the cause of action and the appropriate legal standards for recognising the tort in question.

The legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the tort of interference with business by unlawful means is recognised in Australia and, if it is, whether the cause of action should be struck out as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court also had to consider the principles governing the recognition of new causes of action and the standards for striking out pleadings.

In reaching its decision, the court noted that the tort of interference with business by unlawful means is not recognised in Australia. The court held that the cause of action should be struck out because it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court found that the plaintiffs had not established a sufficient basis for recognising this tort and that the existing legal framework did not support its recognition in Australia. Consequently, the court ordered that certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim be struck out and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim. The court also set out a schedule for cost submissions and ordered that final orders as to costs would be made on a specified date unless a consent order was filed beforehand.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 16 to 20 and 22 and (paragraph 4 of the claim for relief) in the amended statement of claim, and paragraph 4 of the claim are struck out.

2. Application for leave to amend claim is refused.

3. If either party wishes to make submissions as to costs:

a. the plaintiffs are to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Monday 3 March 2025;

b. the defendant is to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Thursday 6 March 2025; and

c. the plaintiffs are to file submissions in reply, if any, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00pm Monday 10 March 2025.

4. Orders as to costs will be made on Wednesday 12 March 2025 unless there is a consent order as to costs filed before that date.

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:	Jennings & Anor v Jennings [2025] QDC 13
PARTIES:	JASMIN NICOLE JENNINGS (First Plaintiff) And J JENNINGS SERVICES PTY LTD (Second Plaintiff) v ALISHA LOUISE JENNINGS (defendant)
FILENO:	BD No 3047/24
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	26 February 2025
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	2 December 2024
JUDGE:	Sheridan JDC
ORDER:	1. Paragraphs 16 to 20 and 22 and (paragraph 4 of the claim for relief) in the amended statement of claim, and paragraph 4 of the claim are struck out. 2. Application for leave to amend claim is refused. 3. If either party wishes to make submissions as to costs: a. the plaintiffs are to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Monday 3 March 2025; b. the defendant is to file submissions, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00 pm Thursday 6 March 2025; and c. the plaintiffs are to file submissions in reply, if any, of no more than two pages in length, excluding any attachments, by 4:00pm Monday 10 March 2025. 4. Orders as to costs will be made on Wednesday 12 March 2025 unless there is a consent order as to costs filed before that date.

CATCHWORDS: LEGISLATION:	PRACTICE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – OTHER CASES AND MATTERS – where the defendant seeks to strike out a cause of action – whether the tort of interference with business by unlawful means is recognised in Australia – whether the cause of action should be struck out Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171(1)(a)
CASES:	Ballard v Multiplex [2012] NSWSC 426 Beaudesert Shire Council v Smith (1966) 120 CLR 145 Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd [2010] ACTSC 20; (2010) 173 ACTR 33 Deepcliffe P/L & Anor v The Council of the City of the Gold Coast & Anor [2001] QCA 342 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Hardie Finance Corporation Pty Ltd v Ahern (No 3) [2010] WASC 403 Northern Territory of Australia and Others v Mengel and Others (1995) 185 CLR 307 Nyoni v Shire of Kellerberrin (No 2) [2012] FCA 1477 OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1 Polar Aviation v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2011) 203 FCR; [2011] FCA 1126 Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers’ Union of Australia and Others (2011) 280 ALR 503 Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329 Sheridan & Ors v Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 440 The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2006] 1 Qd R 307 Yap v Matic [2022] WASC 181
COUNSEL:	Amerena LV for the defendant/applicant
SOLICITORS:	Kronberg PA, solicitor with Ryan Murdoch O’Regan Lawyers for the plaintiffs/respondents Fit Lawyers for the defendant/applicant