Lewis v Martin - [2024] QSC 81

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Lewis v Martin & Ors [2024] QSC 81

PARTIES:
CHRISTINE ANN LEWIS

(plaintiff)
v
PRISCILLA MARTIN

(first defendant) AND

RAMSAY HEALTHCARE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED T/AS SUNSHINE COAST UNIVERSITY PRIVATE HOSPITAL (ABN 36 003 184 889)

(second defendant) AND

SUNSHINE COAST HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE
(third defendant)

FILE NO: 13875 of 2021

DIVISION: Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Application

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVEREDON: 17 May 2024

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 19 April 2024

JUDGE: Sullivan J

ORDER:
The Order of the Court will be as follows:

1.   The application of the first defendant filed 8 March 2024 be dismissed.

2.   The application of the third defendant filed 11 April 2024 be dismissed.

3.   The plaintiff is given leave to make the amendments which appear as paragraphs 75(j), 75A(c), 77(aaa) and 77A(a) of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 2 June 2023.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – GENERALLY -

where the first defendant sought to strike out and disallow amendments contained in certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim – where the plaintiff brought a cross- application for leave to make the amendments – where the

third defendant sought to strike out and disallow amendments contained in certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim – where the plaintiff brought a cross-application for leave to make the amendments – whether the application of the first defendant ought to be granted - whether the application of the third defendant ought to be granted - whether the plaintiff ought to be granted leave to make the amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim

Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)

Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld), s 16 Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld), s 11 Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 375, r 376, r 379

Allonnor Ply Ltd v Doran [1998] QCA 372

Australian Golf Management Corporation Pty Ltd v Logan City Council [2023] QSC 222

Borsato v Campbell [2006] QSC 191
Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Central Sawmilling No. 1 Pty Ltd & Ors v State of Queensland
[2003] QCA 311
Cooke v Gill (1873) LR 8 CP 107
Draney v Barry [2002] 1 Qd R 145
Harnett v Hynes [2010] QCA 65

Hughes v Westpac Banking Corporation [2010] QSC 274 Paul v Westpac Banking Corporation [2017] 2 Qd R 96 Pianta v BHP Australia Coal Ltd [1996] 1 Qd R 65 Thomas v State of Queensland [2001] QCA 336

Wolfe v State of Queensland [2009] 1 Qd R 97

COUNSEL:

G Mullins KC with E Fitzgerald for the plaintiff A Luchich for the first defendant

D Schneidewin for the third defendant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the plaintiff

Moray & Agnew Solicitors for the first defendant DWF (Australia) for the third defendant

Introduction

There are four applications before the Court. They all relate to certain amendments contained in an Amended Statement of Claim filed on 2 June 2023.

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 Lewis v Martin

Details

AGLC: Lewis v Martin [2024] QSC 81
Case: [2024] QSC 81
Decision Date: 17 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Lewis v Martin, the plaintiff, Lewis, sought to amend certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendants, Martin and others, filed applications seeking to strike out and disallow these amendments. The case revolved around the procedural aspects of civil proceedings, particularly focusing on the leave to amend pleadings.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff had a legitimate basis to make the proposed amendments to the Amended Statement of Claim. The defendants argued that the proposed amendments were an attempt to introduce new causes of action outside the scope of the original pleadings, and that such amendments should not be allowed at this stage of the proceedings. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the amendments were necessary to clarify and improve the precision of the claims made.

The court considered the legal principles governing amendments to pleadings in civil proceedings. It noted the general rule that amendments should be allowed if they are not an abuse of process, and if the amendments would not unfairly prejudice the defendants. The court examined the substance of the proposed amendments and found that they related to factual and procedural clarifications which were necessary to properly address the issues in the case. Consequently, the court held that the amendments were not an abuse of process and should be allowed, dismissing the defendants' applications to strike out the amendments.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Order of the Court will be as follows:

1. The application of the first defendant filed 8 March 2024 be dismissed.

2. The application of the third defendant filed 11 April 2024 be dismissed.

3. The plaintiff is given leave to make the amendments which appear as paragraphs 75(j), 75A(c), 77(aaa) and 77A(a) of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 2 June 2023.

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:	Lewis v Martin & Ors [2024] QSC 81
PARTIES:	CHRISTINE ANN LEWIS (plaintiff) v PRISCILLA MARTIN (first defendant) AND RAMSAY HEALTHCARE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED T/AS SUNSHINE COAST UNIVERSITY PRIVATE HOSPITAL (ABN 36 003 184 889) (second defendant) AND SUNSHINE COAST HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICE (third defendant)
FILE NO:	13875 of 2021
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVEREDON:	17 May 2024
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	19 April 2024
JUDGE:	Sullivan J
ORDER:	The Order of the Court will be as follows: 1. The application of the first defendant filed 8 March 2024 be dismissed. 2. The application of the third defendant filed 11 April 2024 be dismissed. 3. The plaintiff is given leave to make the amendments which appear as paragraphs 75(j), 75A(c), 77(aaa) and 77A(a) of the Amended Statement of Claim filed 2 June 2023.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – GENERALLY - where the first defendant sought to strike out and disallow amendments contained in certain paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim – where the plaintiff brought a cross- application for leave to make the amendments – where the