Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District v Parups Waring Architects Pty Ltd

In the matter of Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District v Parups Waring Architects Pty Ltd, the court was asked to consider whether certain steps taken by the plaintiff, Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District, in a dormant proceeding were irregular and required court approval. The proceeding, which involves claims for breach of contract, negligence, and misleading or deceptive conduct, had been inactive for over two years prior to the plaintiff's attempts to recommence it. The plaintiff sent two letters to the defendant, Parups Waring Architects Pty Ltd, on 13 June 2022. The first letter notified the defendant of the plaintiff's intention to take a step in the proceeding, and the second enclosed an expert report. Additionally, on 19 August 2022, the plaintiff served a list of documents on the defendant. The defendant considered these steps to be irregular and asserted that the proceeding was stayed, requiring court approval for any further steps.

The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was required to seek leave from the court before taking the steps in question and whether the irregular steps taken by the plaintiff could be declared effectual under the relevant rules. Specifically, the court had to consider the application of rule 389 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), which governs the continuation of proceedings after a delay, and rule 371, which addresses the effect of non-compliance with the rules.

The court found that the plaintiff was not required to seek leave before taking the steps in question, as the irregular steps did not amount to a new step in the proceeding for the purposes of rule 389(2). Instead, the court determined that the plaintiff's actions were preparatory and did not constitute formal steps that would require court approval. Additionally, the court held that the irregular steps taken by the plaintiff could be declared effectual under rule 371(2)(d). The court acknowledged that the proceeding had been inactive for over two years and that the plaintiff's actions were intended to recommence the proceeding. The court concluded that declaring the steps effectual was the most appropriate course of action, given the circumstances of the case.

In light of the court's decision, the court made several orders to facilitate the resumption of the proceeding. These included declaring the plaintiff's service of the expert report and the list of documents to be effectual, setting deadlines for the parties to file and serve amended pleadings and expert evidence, and scheduling a mediation to attempt to resolve the matter. The court also ordered that the costs of the defendant's application filed on 12 September 2022 be paid by the plaintiff. Overall, the court's decision allowed the proceeding to continue, while also imposing certain obligations on the parties to ensure the efficient and timely progression of the case.