Mathews v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [1998] QCA 407

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 407
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No. 9697 of 1998
Brisbane
[Mathews v. Telstra]
BETWEEN:
RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

(Plaintiff) Applicant

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)

(Defendant) Respondent
Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.A.
White J.

Judgment delivered 4 December 1998
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

CATCHWORDS: CIVIL PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal against District

Court order striking out parts of a plaint - claim for $840 for overcharged phone calls and $249,000 exemplary damages - claim based on unconscionable conduct and claim for exemplary damages struck out - whether plaintiff can recover exemplary damages for losses suffered by others whom the plaintiff does not represent.
Counsel: Applicant appeared on his own behalf.
Mr K A Barlow appeared for the respondent.
Solicitors: Applicant appeared on his own behalf.
Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the respondent.
Hearing Date: 30 November 1998.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Appeal No. 9697 of 1998
Brisbane

Before Pincus J.A.
Thomas J.A.
White J.
[Mathews v. Telstra]
BETWEEN:
RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS

(Plaintiff) Applicant

AND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)

(Defendant) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.
Judgment delivered 4 December 1998

This is an application for leave to appeal against an order of the District Court striking out
certain parts of a plaint filed in that Court. The claim made by the plaint is for $249,840 and it is
in essence based on an assertion that the plaintiff, now applicant, was overcharged $840 for phone
calls. The difference between the amount of the alleged overcharge and the amount claimed consists
of a claim for exemplary damages in the sum of $249,000. The parts of the pleading which have
been struck out relate principally to two matters. First, they relate to assertions that the defendant
Telstra, now respondent, acted unconscionably in a morally reprehensible manner; secondly, they
relate to the claim for exemplary damages. The judge’s reasons for striking out these parts of the
claim were as to unconscionable conduct, that his Honour took the view that the matters pleaded did not sufficiently raise a case of unconscionability on the part of the respondent; as to exemplary
damages, the judge held that the plaintiff’s case was that exemplary damages should be awarded
because of the defendant’s conduct towards persons other than himself and that it therefore could
not succeed.
The task of the courts in dealing with pleadings which are not professionally drawn is not
always an easy one. On the one hand, it is undesirable and can be unfair to the pleader’s opponent
to bring on trials of issues which are inadequately defined. On the other hand, one could not
reasonably expect every unrepresented litigant to produce a pleading which is of a proper standard.
In the present case,…

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 Mathews v Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mathews v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1998] QCA 407
Case: [1998] QCA 407
Decision Date: 4/12/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Mathews v Telstra Corporation Ltd involved an application for leave to appeal against a decision made by the District Court. The applicant, Mathews, sought to appeal the dismissal of his claim for exemplary and aggravated damages against Telstra Corporation Ltd. Mathews contended that the District Court judge should have considered a specific legal precedent and that the dismissal of his claim was unjust.

The court was required to decide whether the applicant's reliance on the precedent from Musca v Astle Corporation Pty Ltd was sufficient to warrant the grant of leave to appeal. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the dismissal of the applicant's claim for exemplary and aggravated damages was appropriate given the nature of his claims and the existing legal principles.

The court found that the applicant's reliance on the Musca case was not sufficient to support the grant of leave to appeal. The court noted that the Musca case, which concerned exemplary damages in an action in deceit, did not directly address the basis of the applicant's claim. Furthermore, the court held that the applicant's claim for exemplary damages was based on the contumelious disregard of the plaintiff's rights, rather than the rights of other potential plaintiffs. Consequently, the court determined that the dismissal of the applicant's claim was correct, as there were no pleaded facts that would justify the retention of a claim for aggravated damages.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and no appeal was granted. The decision of the District Court was upheld, and the applicant's claims for exemplary and aggravated damages were not reinstated.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

As his Honour mentions, the applicant relied upon his affidavit filed on 20 October 1998 in which he complains that the decision of French J in Musca v Astle Corporation Pty Ltd (1988) Aust Torts Reports 80-171 being directly on point with respect to exemplary damages ought to have been made available to the learned judge below and should guide the outcome of this application. In that case his Honour concluded that exemplary damages might be awarded in Australia in an action in deceit, a conclusion which was not then governed by binding or persuasive authority. His Honour’s statements of legal principle do not assist the applicant because exemplary damages are directed to the contumelious disregard of a plaintiff’s rights and not other possible plaintiffs’ rights which is the basis of the applicant’s claim which was recognised by his Honour below and for that reason struck out. Neither were there any facts pleaded which would justify the retention of a claim for aggravated damages.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 407
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal against District
Court order striking out parts of a plaint - claim for $840 for overcharged phone calls and $249,000 exemplary damages - claim based on unconscionable conduct and claim for exemplary damages struck out - whether plaintiff can recover exemplary damages for losses suffered by others whom the plaintiff does not represent.
Counsel:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf. Mr K A Barlow appeared for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf. Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	30 November 1998.