Kwiatkowski v Plum Pictures Limited - [2023] NSWSC 165

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Kwiatkowski v Plum Pictures Limited & Anor. [2023] NSWSC 165
Hearing dates: 28 February 2023
Date of orders: 28 February 2023
Decision date: 28 February 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Chen J
Decision:
(1) Dismiss the second defendant’s Notice of Motion filed 9 September 2022.
(2) Order that the plaintiff provide particulars to the defendants identifying with precision, in connection with each and every reference to the phrase ‘servants and/or agents’ where it appears in the amended statement of claim filed 20 April 2022, the ‘servants and/or agents’ referred to, with such particulars to be provided on or before 14 March 2023, 5pm.
(3) Order the second defendant to file and serve its defence to the amended statement of claim filed 20 April 2022 on or before 11 April 2023, 5pm.
(4) Direct that the matter be listed for directions before the Common Law Registrar, specifically to include orders for the preparation of the defendants’ evidence, on 18 April 2023.
(5) Order that the costs of the second defendant’s Notice of Motion be costs in the cause.
(6) Vacate the directions hearing listed before the Common Law Registrar on 20 March 2023.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action

Legislation Cited:
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules2005 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Gunns Ltd v Meagher [2005] VSC 251
Hallmark Construction Pty Ltd v Brett Harford (2020) 294 IR 359; [2020] NSWCA 41
TNT Australia Pty Ltd v Christie (2003) 65 NSWLR 1; [2003] NSWCA 47
Williams v Metcash Trading Ltd [2019] NSWCA 94

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Anne Kwiatkowski (plaintiff)
Plum Pictures Limited (first defendant)
Michelle Thomas t/a Rapid Environmental Response Unit (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr A McQuillen (plaintiff)
Mr A Hourigan (first defendant)
Mr N Simone (second defendant)
Solicitors:
G H Healey & Co Lawyers (plaintiff)
Watson Mangioni Lawyers Pty Ltd (first defendant)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (second defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/53869
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE

This is an application, by Notice of Motion filed 9 September 2022, brought by the second defendant for an order that the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim be summarily dismissed or, in the alternative, struck out.
The second defendant has read an affidavit of Julian McGrath sworn 9 September 2022 in support of the application (‘McGrath affidavit’). The plaintiff relied upon an affidavit of Katarina Healey sworn 7 October 2022.

Background

The background facts are within narrow compass. I will briefly deal with the nature of the claim that the plaintiff seeks to bring, and then deal more particularly with the allegations that have generated the present dispute.

The accident circumstances

The plaintiff commenced proceedings, by way of statement…

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 Kwiatkowski v Plum Pictures Limited 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: [2023] NSWSC 165
Decision Date: 28 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kwiatkowski v Plum Pictures Limited was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Mr. Kwiatkowski, brought a claim against the defendant, Plum Pictures Limited, for damages related to alleged breaches of contract and defamation. The central dispute involved the terms of an employment contract and subsequent conduct by the defendant that the plaintiff claimed had resulted in defamatory statements and unjust dismissal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract, and if the defamation claims met the threshold requirements for proceeding to trial. The court had to assess the sufficiency of the pleadings to determine whether there was a prima facie case that warranted further judicial investigation.

In determining the case, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia found that the plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court held that the plaintiff's claims were speculative and lacked sufficient factual basis to warrant the court proceeding to trial. The pleadings were deemed insufficient in outlining the elements of a breach of contract and the defamation claims did not meet the requirements set out in the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings.

Orders