Markan v Bar Association of Queensland

The case of Markan v Bar Association of Queensland involves a dispute between the plaintiff, who made complaints about the conduct of two barristers in relation to his representation in the Court of Appeal and one barrister in relation to memoranda of advice provided to him after an unsuccessful appeal in the Court of Appeal, and the defendant, the Bar Association of Queensland. The Legal Services Commissioner referred the complaints to the defendant, which subsequently wrote to the plaintiff about the complaints and prepared reports recommending that the complaints be dismissed. The Legal Services Commission dismissed all of the plaintiff's complaints, leading the plaintiff to file a claim and statement of claim. The defendant then applied for the claim and statement of claim to be struck out, and later amended its application to have the amended claim and statement of claim struck out.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the procedural aspects of the claim, specifically whether the purported amended claim should be set aside as leave of the court was not sought or given and whether the claim should be set aside as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous and an abuse of process of the court. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the statement of claim and amended statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous and an abuse of process of the court.

The court found that the purported amended claim should be set aside as leave of the court was not sought or given, and the statement of claim and amended statement of claim should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action, being scandalous and an abuse of process of the court. The court held that the claim was an abuse of the court's process, as it was brought in bad faith and without any reasonable prospect of success. The court also found that the claim was scandalous, as it sought to make allegations of professional misconduct against the barristers without any basis in fact. As a result, the claim filed on 4 February 2013 and the amended claim filed on 7 March 2013 were set aside, and the statement of claim filed on 4 February 2013 and the amended statement of claim filed on 7 March 2013 were struck out.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed.