Litz v State of Qld

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Horst Wilhelm Litz, the plaintiff, filed an appeal against the State of Queensland and Colin George Brady and Ruth Brady, the defendants. The plaintiff sought to have a defence and counterclaim delivered by the first defendant, the State of Queensland, struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court. The plaintiff also sought leave to enter judgment against the first defendant in default of an effective delivery of a defence. The first defendant filed an application for leave to deliver the defence and counterclaim. The court had to decide whether the plaintiff's application should be dismissed as an abuse of the process of the Court, and whether the first defendant should be granted leave to deliver a defence and counterclaim.

The court found that both the plaintiff and the first defendant had delayed proceedings for an inordinate amount of time, which reflected the delay in their earlier actions commenced in June and July 1990. The court held that both parties needed liberty under RSC Order 90 Rule 9 to take further proceedings in the action. The court also held that the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 had no application at that time to the relief claimed by either party. The court considered it important that all the matters and issues canvassed in the three actions instituted in the Court over the last eight years by both parties be resolved as openly and as speedily as possible. Therefore, the court granted leave to both parties to take a fresh step in the action to avoid further delay and legal costs. The court also made no order for costs in respect of either application.

In conclusion, the court granted leave to both parties to take a fresh step in the action, which would enable the plaintiff to deliver a further pleading and proceed with the application to enter judgment on any basis upon which he may be advised. The court also held that the application to strike out the defence and counterclaim delivered on 28 April 1998 could proceed if the plaintiff was so advised. The court suggested that the matter might benefit from a case appraisal, and gave each party liberty to apply for a reference to case appraisal upon notice to the other.