Legal Research
Cases
Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 2)

Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 2)

Case [2012] VSC 268 20 June 2012

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Summary Judgment

Discovery & Disclosure

Interlocutory Orders

Amendment

Class Actions

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2011 6715

ANDREW KARL KNORR

Plaintiff

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION (CSIRO)

FOREST AND WOOD PRODUCTS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (FWPRDC)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

BORAL TIMBER (BORAL LIMITED) (ACN 008 421 761)
and ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED
(ACN 000 003 056)

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA ARBN 055 647 848 (UTAS)

MALLESONS STEPHEN JAQUES (MALLESONS)

FOREST AND WOOD PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 127 114 185) (FWPA)

MBAC CONSULTING GROUP PTY LTD
(ACN 126 232 746) (MBAC)

STATE OF VICTORIA (STATE)

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 268

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Statement of Claim – Failure to plead material facts – Failure to properly particularise material facts – failing to plead or particularise fraud properly – Pleading embarrassing – Pleading likely to delay the fair trial of the proceeding – Pleading manifestly defective – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, rule 23.02.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for summary judgment – Whether proceeding has no real prospects of success – Whether proceeding has no real prospects of success against particular defendants – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, rules 23.01 and 23.03 – Civil Procedure Act 2010, ss 62 and 63.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment – Application to join additional plaintiff – Application to join company as additional defendant – Company not represented by a lawyer – Worldwide Enterprises Pty Ltd v Silberman & Anor (2010) 26 VR 595 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the First Defendant	Mr J.P. Slattery	Clayton Utz
For the Second Defendant	No appearance
For the Third Defendant	Ms E. Strong SC with Mr I. Horak	Australian Government Solicitor
For the Fourth Defendant	Mr J.P. Moore	Ashurst Australia
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr R.H.M. Attiwill	Perry Maddocks Trollope
For the Sixth Defendant	Mr J.S. Mereine	King & Wood Mallesons
For the Seventh Defendant	Mr D.A Klempfner	Colin Biggers & Paisley
For the Eighth Defendant	Mr S. Krischock	Moray & Agnew
For the Ninth Defendant	Dr M.J. Collins SC with Ms R.L. Enbom	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

This proceeding was issued on 12 December 2011. On 9 March 2012, I struck out the plaintiff’s statement of claim.[1] I did so because the statement of claim was manifestly defective,[2] it failing to comply with any of the ordinary rules of pleading.
[1]Knorr v CSIRO & Ors [2012] VSC 83.
[2]Ibid, [12].

In striking out the plaintiff’s statement of claim, I concluded that:

(a)permitting a trial to proceed on the basis of it (the statement of claim as then pleaded) would undoubtedly prejudice, embarrass and…

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 Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 2) [2012] VSC 268
Case: [2012] VSC 268
Decision Date: 20 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Knorr v CSIRO & Ors, the plaintiff, Knorr, sought to bring a proceeding against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and two other defendants. The nature of the dispute was primarily about the adequacy of the plaintiff's statement of claim and the subsequent procedural applications, including an application for summary judgment and an application to amend the pleadings. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was adequate in pleading material facts, particularly those relating to fraud, and whether it was likely to delay the fair trial of the proceeding. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the proceeding had no real prospects of success against the defendants and whether there were any grounds for amending the pleadings to join an additional plaintiff or defendant.

In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was materially defective, as it failed to properly plead and particularise certain material facts, including those relating to fraud. The court held that the pleadings were embarrassing and likely to delay the fair trial of the proceeding. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceeding as having no real prospects of success against the defendants. The court also found that there were no grounds for amending the pleadings to join an additional plaintiff or defendant, particularly since the company was not represented by a lawyer.

The final orders of the court were that the proceeding be dismissed with costs and that the application to amend the pleadings be dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to properly plead and particularise material facts, especially those related to fraud, was a significant deficiency that rendered the proceeding unviable. The court also noted that the application to join additional parties was not appropriate given the circumstances, particularly the lack of legal representation for the company.

Orders