Mathews v Morgan

[2005] QSC 222

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Mathews v Morgan & Ors [2005] QSC 222

PARTIES:

RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS
(plaintiff)
v
REV PROFESSOR DR JOHN MORGAN
(first defendant)
BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL
(second defendant)
HUGH DOUGLAS MCVEAN
(third defendant)
CORAL LOUISE MCVEAN
(fourth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 4337 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 August 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 August 2005

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

1.The statement of claim be struck out and the plaintiff have leave to plead a fresh statement of claim against Mr and Mrs McVean and Dr Morgan in conformity with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules but not against the Brisbane City Council which is removed as a defendant in these proceedings.   

2.The fresh statement of claim must be filed and served within eight weeks of 12 August 2005 unless by earlier agreement or order of the court that time is extended.   

3.The orders on the application of Mr Mathews are  

1.Adjourned to a date to be fixed        

2.No order made        

3.No order made        

4.Refused        

5&6.Refused   

7&8.Leave given  

9.Dismissed       

10.Refused     

11.Refused     

12.Adjourned to a date to be fixed     

13&14. Refused 

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – application to strike-out – where specific damages in relation to some of the allegations not claimed – where the damages not identified – where some of the allegations require the setting out of clear and concise supporting facts

PRACTICE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – PARTIES – OTHER MATTERS – application for joinder – where conspiracy alleged – whether common question of law or fact – whether relief sought arose out of the same transaction or event or series of transactions or events

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 149, r 150,
r 157-163, r 171

Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658, cited
Ebner v Official Trustee (2000) 2005 CLR 337, applied
Madden v Kirkegard Elwood & Partners [1975] Qd R 363, cited
Wentworth v Rogers No 5 (1986) 6 NSWLR 534, cited

COUNSEL:

Mr J Peden for the first and second defendants
Mr F Dawson for the third and fourth defendants
Mr Russell Mathews for himself as plaintiff and cross-applicant

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O’Gorman for the first defendant
Brisbane City Legal Practice for the second defendant
Butler McDermott & Egan for the third and fourth defendants

1. The first, second and third and fourth defendants have brought applications, the third and fourth defendants jointly, to strike out the plaintiff’

   s statement of claim pursuant to r 171(1)(a)-(d) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.  The plaintiff,

   
   

   Mr Mathews, has brought an application seeking to have those applications struck out and for other diverse relief to which I shall refer in due course.

1. Mr Mathews appears for himself.  It is not in dispute that he is not a well man having suffered brain injury…