Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd v Moore - [2016] QDC 218

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:		Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd v Moore [2016] QDC 218
PARTIES:		MACKAMALIL HEALTH PTY LTD ACN 158 236 367 (respondent/plaintiff) v ALEXANDRA CHRISTINE MOORE (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:		BD2160/13
DIVISION:		District Court of Queensland
PROCEEDING:		Civil Application
ORIGINATING COURT:		District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:		1 September 2016
DELIVERED AT:		Brisbane
HEARING DATE:		30 August 2016
JUDGE:		Butler SC, DCJ
ORDER:		The Defendant is granted leave to amend its Defence in substantially the form of Annexure BJC-27 to the affidavit of Bridget Jean Camilleri sworn and filed 24 August 2016.1. By 12pm Friday, 2 September 2016, the Plaintiff is to serve any Notice to Admit Facts and any Notice to Admit Documents.2. By 4pm Monday, 5 September 2016, the Defendant is to serve its response (if any) to the Plaintiff’s Notice to Admit Facts and/or any Notice to Admit Documents.3. By 4pm Monday, 5 September 2016, the Plaintiff is to file and serve any Further Amended Reply.4. The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this application on the standard basis. 5.
CATCHWORDS:		PROCEDURE – DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – DEFENCE – Where defendant seeks to amend her Defence – Where leave is required to amend – whether leave should be granted
COUNSEL:		D de Jersey Counsel for applicant/defendant G Sheahan Counsel for respondent/plaintiff
SOLICITORS:		K&L Gates for applicant/defendant Nathan Lawyers for respondent/plaintiff

The applicant applies for leave to amend the Amended Defence filed on 3 December 2014. The proposed amendment is in the form of a draft exhibited as BJC-27 to the affidavit of Bridget Camilleri, filed 24 August 2016.

As a request for a trial date has already been filed, r 380 requires that leave of the court be granted to make any amendment. The application is one of some urgency as the matter is listed for a three day trial commencing on 7 September 2016. The proposed amendments were first brought to the attention of the respondent on 9 August 2016 when the applicant forwarded a copy seeking its consent to the amendments.

Background

The action is brought by the respondent company which purchased a medical centre from the applicant doctor. The parties entered into a written agreement for the applicant to sell, as a going concern, the business of a general medical practice in Rockhampton for a consideration of $80,000. The plaintiff company alleges that the defendant entered into an agreement in May 2012 to be employed as a medical practitioner at the practice for a period ending 1 May 2015. The defendant denies the terms of the agreement and in particular denies that she agreed to be engaged for a fixed term ending on 1 May 2015. There is a further dispute as to whether the defendant agreed to supervise overseas trained doctors. The defendant ceased to perform any services under the engagement from 14 December 2012. The plaintiff alleges this constituted a breach of their agreement, causing…

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 Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd v Moore

Details

AGLC: Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd v Moore [2016] QDC 218
Case: [2016] QDC 218
Decision Date: 1 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd v Moore, heard in the Queensland District Court, concerns the defendant's application to amend her defence. The defendant, Moore, sought to alter her defence to the plaintiff's action, necessitating the court's consideration of the procedural requirements for such amendments. The plaintiff, Mackamalil Health Pty Ltd, opposed the application, raising issues about the appropriateness of the proposed amendments and the timing of the application.

The legal issues central to this case revolve around the procedural rules governing the amendment of pleadings in Queensland District Court proceedings. The court had to determine whether the defendant's application for leave to amend her defence complied with the requirements set out in the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, particularly Rule 166. The court also considered the discretion available to it under Rule 166(4) in deciding whether to grant leave for the amendment.

In granting the defendant leave to amend her defence, the court carefully considered the principles of procedural fairness and the overarching objective of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules to facilitate the just resolution of the real issues in the proceedings. The court noted that the defendant had acted promptly in seeking to amend her defence and that the proposed changes were substantive rather than merely formal. The court concluded that granting leave would best serve the interests of justice by ensuring that the substantive issues between the parties could be addressed effectively. The court also set down a detailed timetable for the completion of discovery and the exchange of notices to admit facts and documents.

The court ordered that the defendant is granted leave to amend her defence in substantially the form attached as Annexure BJC-27 to the affidavit of Bridget Jean Camilleri. The court set deadlines for the service of notices to admit facts and documents and responses to those notices, as well as for the filing and serving of any further amended reply. Finally, the court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to this application on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Defendant is granted leave to amend its Defence in substantially the form of Annexure BJC-27 to the affidavit of Bridget Jean Camilleri sworn and filed 24 August 2016.1.

By 12pm Friday, 2 September 2016, the Plaintiff is to serve any Notice to Admit Facts and any Notice to Admit Documents.2.

By 4pm Monday, 5 September 2016, the Defendant is to serve its response (if any) to the Plaintiff’s Notice to Admit Facts and/or any Notice to Admit Documents.3.

By 4pm Monday, 5 September 2016, the Plaintiff is to file and serve any Further Amended Reply.4.

The Defendant pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to this application on the standard basis. 5.

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.