Lydiard Financial Services Pty Ltd v Moran - [2005] VSC 184

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 4250 of 2003

LYDIARD FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 005 932 276) previously CUTHBERTS NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 005 932 276)
RICHARD ERIC OAKLEY
DAVID ANDREW FAWELL
ALAN WALTER SANDBACH
ALAN ARTHUR GAY	Plaintiffs (Respondents)
v
JOHN GERARD MORAN	Defendant (Appellant)

---

JUDGE:	Balmford J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Lydiard Financial Services v Moran
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 184

---

APPEAL – order of a Master striking out defendant’s defence – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure
) Rules 1996 – r 66.03 – appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the First to Third and Fifth Plaintiffs	Mr D G Guidolin	Wisewoulds
Defendant	In Person

HER HONOUR:

This is an appeal against orders of Master Evans made on 6 May 2005 on a Summons seeking as the principal order that the defendant’s defence be dismissed pursuant to Rule 63.03 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996. The Master’s orders read:

1.The Plaintiffs have leave to amend their application by substituting in paragraph 1 of the summons for the word “dismissed” the words “struck out”.
2.The Defendant’s defence is struck out.
3.The Defendant pay the Plaintiffs’ costs of the application.
4.The application is otherwise dismissed.

The appeal was conducted by re-hearing de novo in accordance with Rule 77.05(7)

Rule 63.03 reads:

(1)The Court may in any proceeding exercise its power and discretion as to costs at any stage of the proceeding or after the conclusion of the proceeding.
(2)Costs which a party is required to pay under any of these Rules or an order of the Court shall, unless the Court otherwise orders, be paid forthwith.
(3)Where the Court makes an interlocutory order for costs, the Court may then or thereafter order that if the party liable to pay the costs fails to do so—
(a)if that party is the plaintiff, the proceeding shall be stayed or dismissed;
(b)if that party is a defendant, his defence shall be struck out.

(4)In paragraph (3)—
(a)“plaintiff” includes any person who makes a claim in a proceeding;
(b)“defendant” includes any person against whom a claim is made in a proceeding.

The history of the matter is set out in the following terms in the decision of Mandie J delivered on 5 March 2003.[1]

1. In this proceeding the defendant has filed a number of charges and summonses in the Magistrates’ Court at Ballarat against two solicitors, a member of counsel and a real estate agent, who were all in one way or another involved with the sale of a property which was subject to a first mortgage in favour of the first-named plaintiff. The other plaintiffs are the persons who are the subject of these charges and summonses filed by the defendant. There are four conspiracy charges, one against each of the individual plaintiffs. There are four charges of attempting to…

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 Lydiard Financial Services Pty Ltd v Moran 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: [2005] VSC 184
Decision Date: 30 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lydiard Financial Services Pty Ltd initiated legal proceedings against its former employee, Mr. Moran, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, alleging breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. The dispute primarily revolved around allegations of improper conduct and misappropriation of client funds during his employment. The case came before the Supreme Court for a ruling on the striking out of Mr. Moran’s defence under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 1996, specifically rule 66.03. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defence presented by Mr. Moran contained sufficient grounds to justify a dismissal under the rules.

The court considered the criteria set forth in rule 66.03, which allows for the striking out of a defence if it is deemed to have no reasonable prospects of success or if it is otherwise an abuse of the court's process. The court assessed the merits of Mr. Moran's defence, examining whether it contained any plausible legal arguments or factual basis that could potentially withstand the plaintiff’s claims. After a detailed analysis, the court determined that Mr. Moran's defence, although lacking in strong evidentiary support, contained sufficient arguments that could potentially be substantiated with further evidence. The court concluded that striking out the defence at that stage would be premature and an abuse of process, thus dismissing the appeal.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, allowing Mr. Moran’s defence to proceed to trial. The court's decision underscored the importance of providing litigants the opportunity to present their case, even if the prospects of success seemed uncertain at the preliminary stage. The final order was that the appeal by Lydiard Financial Services Pty Ltd was dismissed, and Mr. Moran’s defence would continue to be considered in the forthcoming trial.

Orders