Leinenga v Logan City Council - [2006] QSC 294

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Leinenga & Anor v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294

PARTIES:

JURGEN LEINENGA and CAROL LEINENGA
(plaintiffs/respondents)
v
LOGAN CITY COUNCIL
(defendant/applicant)

FILE NO:

BS226 of 1999

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

16 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2006

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

1.          That the amended statement of claim filed on 21 December 2005 be struck out.

2.          That any further statement of claim in this proceeding not be filed by the plaintiffs without obtaining the leave of the court prior to filing the further statement of claim.

3.          That the plaintiffs provide to the defendant a draft of any further statement of claim at least three weeks prior to the hearing of an application seeking the leave of the court to the filing of the further statement of claim.

4.          Liberty to either party to apply on three days’ notice in writing to the other.

CATCHWORDS:

TORT – MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE – elements of the tort – where plaintiffs plead that each of several acts of officers of the local authority supports a claim for damages of misfeasance in public office – whether plaintiffs can rely on the aggregation of the states of mind of the various officers for each of the impugned acts – where plaintiffs must plead the facts relied on to allege that the relevant officer had the requisite state of mind at the time of doing the impugned act – where plaintiffs must plead the facts from which it may be inferred that the relevant officer did the impugned act with reckless indifference as to the likely injury, loss or damage that might porseeably be suffered by the plaintiffs – where damages alledged to have been suffered must be linked to the relevant act of misfeasance

TORT – NEGLIGENCE – whether formulation of the duty of care must relate to the alleged acts of negligence – where alleged breaches of the duty of care un-particularised – where damages alleged to have been suffered must be linked to the relevant act of negligence

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY - where extensive deficiencies in the statement of claim – where statement of claim is the fifth version – where statement of claim struck out and plaintiffs ordered to obtain the leave of the court prior to filing any further statement of claim

Building Act 1975
UCPR r 150, r 155, r 171

Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [1995] 2 Qd R 336
Beach Club Port Douglas v Page (2005) 143 LGERA 180
Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 299
Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94
Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307
Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329
Sanders v Snell(No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 149

Smith v Eurobodalla Shire Council [2005] NSWCA 89
Three Rivers District Council v…

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 Leinenga v Logan City Council 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: [2006] QSC 294
Decision Date: 16 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Leinenga v Logan City Council, the plaintiffs brought claims against the Council for alleged misfeasance in public office and negligence. The plaintiffs sought damages for harm they claimed to have suffered as a result of various actions by officers of the Council. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the court was required to address substantial deficiencies in the plaintiffs' statement of claim.

The court examined the elements required to establish a claim for misfeasance in public office, including whether the plaintiffs could aggregate the states of mind of various officers for each act of alleged misfeasance. The court determined that the plaintiffs must specifically plead the facts indicating that the relevant officer acted with reckless indifference at the time of the alleged act. Furthermore, the plaintiffs needed to clearly link the damages they claimed to have suffered to the specific act of misfeasance. Similarly, for the negligence claim, the court required that the formulation of the duty of care relate to the specific acts of negligence alleged and that the damages claimed be directly linked to the relevant act of negligence.

The court found extensive deficiencies in the plaintiffs' statement of claim, which was the fifth version. The court struck out the amended statement of claim filed on 21 December 2005 and ordered that any further statement of claim could not be filed without obtaining leave from the court. Additionally, the plaintiffs were required to provide the Council with a draft of any further statement of claim at least three weeks before seeking leave to file it. The court also granted liberty to either party to apply on three days' notice to the other.

The final orders of the court included striking out the amended statement of claim, prohibiting the filing of any further statement of claim without leave, requiring the plaintiffs to provide a draft of any further statement of claim to the defendant three weeks before seeking leave to file it, and granting liberty to either party to apply on three days' notice to the other.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the amended statement of claim filed on 21 December 2005 be struck out.

2. That any further statement of claim in this proceeding not be filed by the plaintiffs without obtaining the leave of the court prior to filing the further statement of claim.

3. That the plaintiffs provide to the defendant a draft of any further statement of claim at least three weeks prior to the hearing of an application seeking the leave of the court to the filing of the further statement of claim.

4. Liberty to either party to apply on three days’ notice in writing to the other.

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:	Leinenga & Anor v Logan City Council [2006] QSC 294
PARTIES:	JURGEN LEINENGA and CAROL LEINENGA (plaintiffs/respondents) v LOGAN CITY COUNCIL (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO:	BS226 of 1999
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
DELIVERED ON:	16 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 May 2006
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	1. That the amended statement of claim filed on 21 December 2005 be struck out. 2. That any further statement of claim in this proceeding not be filed by the plaintiffs without obtaining the leave of the court prior to filing the further statement of claim. 3. That the plaintiffs provide to the defendant a draft of any further statement of claim at least three weeks prior to the hearing of an application seeking the leave of the court to the filing of the further statement of claim. 4. Liberty to either party to apply on three days’ notice in writing to the other.
CATCHWORDS:	TORT – MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE – elements of the tort – where plaintiffs plead that each of several acts of officers of the local authority supports a claim for damages of misfeasance in public office – whether plaintiffs can rely on the aggregation of the states of mind of the various officers for each of the impugned acts – where plaintiffs must plead the facts relied on to allege that the relevant officer had the requisite state of mind at the time of doing the impugned act – where plaintiffs must plead the facts from which it may be inferred that the relevant officer did the impugned act with reckless indifference as to the likely injury, loss or damage that might porseeably be suffered by the plaintiffs – where damages alledged to have been suffered must be linked to the relevant act of misfeasance TORT – NEGLIGENCE – whether formulation of the duty of care must relate to the alleged acts of negligence – where alleged breaches of the duty of care un-particularised – where damages alleged to have been suffered must be linked to the relevant act of negligence PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – GENERALLY - where extensive deficiencies in the statement of claim – where statement of claim is the fifth version – where statement of claim struck out and plaintiffs ordered to obtain the leave of the court prior to filing any further statement of claim Building Act 1975 UCPR r 150, r 155, r 171 Australian Commercial Research and Development Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia [1995] 2 Qd R 336 Beach Club Port Douglas v Page (2005) 143 LGERA 180 Emanuel Management Pty Ltd (in liq) v Foster’s Brewing Group Ltd [2003] QSC 299 Neilson v City of Swan [2006] WASCA 94 Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307 Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329 Sanders v Snell(No 2) (2003) 130 FCR 149 Smith v Eurobodalla Shire Council [2005] NSWCA 89 Three Rivers District Council v…