KRNJIC v Bunnings Group Ltd - [2018] FCCA 813

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KRNJIC v BUNNINGS GROUP LTD

[2018] FCCA 813

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Applicant’s statement of claim and amended statement of claim unparticularised and ambit in nature – respondent’s application to have the proceeding summary dismissed pursuant to r.13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules or the statement of claim struck out pursuant to r.16.21 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules – interlocutory application dismissed – applicant ordered to file and serve new statement of claim with proper particulars – wholly unfair and unjust to summarily dismiss proceeding – applicant without legal assistance for some time – as a litigant in person applicant at a disadvantage.

DAMAGES – global claims – ambit global claims undesirable – global claims do not enable a respondent to make proper Calderbank offer or offer of compromise – proper particularised assertions of losses ordered to be provided.

Legislation:

Disability Discrimination Act 1992, s.35
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999, s.16

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, rr.13.10, 16.21

Cases cited:

AMF15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 68
Attorney-General (Duchy of Lancaster) v London and North Western Railway Co [1892] 3 Ch 274
Day v William Hill (Park Lane) Ltd [1949] 1 KB 632
Fletcher v Bethom (1893) 68 LT 438
John Holland Construction & Engineering Pty Ltd v Kvaerner R J Brown Pty Ltd & Anor (1996) 8 VR 681
Republic of Peru v Peruvian Guano Co (1887) 36 Ch D 489
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118

Other materials:

Andrew Mansour, ‘Global Claims: Maze or Motorway?’ (October 1994) Building and Construction Law 314-317
David McAndrew, ‘Contractors’ global loss of productivity claims’ (2014) 30 Building and Construction Law 107-127
Michael Creedon and Kimie Tsukakoshi, ‘The global claim labyrinth’ (November 2013) Australian Construction Law Bulletin 136-140
The Honourable Mr Justice Byrne, ‘Total Costs and Global Claims’ (1995) 11 Building and Construction Law Journal 397-416

Applicant:

JOHN KRNJIC

Respondent:

BUNNINGS GROUP LTD (ACN 008 672 179)

File Number:

MLG 1004 of 2017

Judgment of:

His Honour Judge Wilson

Hearing date:

5 April 2018

Date of Last Submission:

5 April 2018

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

5 April 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitors for the Applicant:

None

Counsel for the Respondent:

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Lander & Rogers

ORDERS

The respondent’s application in a case filed 28 March 2018 is dismissed.
The amended statement of claim filed 11 January 2018 is struck out.
By 4pm on 20 September 2018, the applicant file and serve a further amended statement of claim with proper particulars.
The proceeding is adjourned to 21 September 2018 at 10:15am for directions.
Each party’s costs are reserved.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1004 of 2017

JOHN KRNJIC

Applicant

And

BUNNINGS GROUP LTD (ACN 008 672 179)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

Following the withdrawal of legal practitioners previously representing him, the applicant maintains this proceeding as a litigant in person claiming compensation for disability discrimination allegedly…

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 KRNJIC v Bunnings Group Ltd 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: [2018] FCCA 813
Decision Date: 5 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, KRNJIC, brought proceedings against the respondent, Bunnings Group Ltd, alleging breaches of human rights. The respondent sought to have the proceeding summarily dismissed or the statement of claim struck out. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Judge Wilson, considered these interlocutory applications.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the applicant's statement of claim, including an amended version, was sufficiently particularised to allow the respondent to properly respond and whether the proceeding should be summarily dismissed or the statement of claim struck out due to a lack of particulars and its ambit nature. The Court also considered the fairness of summarily dismissing the proceeding, particularly given the applicant's status as a litigant in person who had experienced periods without legal assistance.

Judge Wilson determined that summarily dismissing the proceeding would be wholly unfair and unjust. The Court reasoned that while global claims for damages are undesirable as they hinder a respondent's ability to make appropriate offers of compromise or Calderbank offers, the applicant, as a litigant in person facing disadvantages, should be afforded an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. Consequently, the Court dismissed the respondent's application to summarily dismiss the proceeding or strike out the statement of claim. Instead, the applicant was ordered to file and serve a new statement of claim that provided proper particulars of their asserted losses.

Orders