Mc Vey v Bullard - [2024] VSC 442

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY LIST

S ECI 2023 02033

BETWEEN:

WILLIAM JAMES MC VEY	Plaintiff
v
ANTHONY BULLARD & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Goulden AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2024
DATE OF RULING:	29 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Mc Vey v Bullard
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 442

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Application made by each defendant for summary judgment pursuant to ss 62 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) — Whether the plaintiff’s claims have no real prospect of success — Applications, in the alternative, pursuant to r 23.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (Vic) to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim —Whether the plaintiff’s claim fails to disclose a cause of action, is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, may embarrass or delay a fair trial or is otherwise an abuse of process.

---

APPEARANCES:	Representative	Solicitors
The Plaintiff in person
For the First and Second Defendants	Mr G Triantopoulos	GTR Lawyers
For the Third and Fifth Defendants	Mr S Buchanan of counsel	Hall & Wilcox
For the Fourth Defendant	Ms M Mann	Gilchrist Connell Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.. The Defendants’ Applications

B.. Procedural Background

C.. Defendants’ Application for Summary Judgment under ss 62 and 63 of the CPA

C.1Sections 62, 63 and 64 of the CPA

D.. Defendants’ Application to Strike Out the ASOC

E... Disposition

HER HONOUR:

A The Defendants’ Applications

In this proceeding, the plaintiff, who is self-represented, sues a number of defendants who he says were charged, in various ways, with professional responsibility for protecting his interests over a period of time during which he pursued a claim for compensation for personal injuries he had sustained in the course of his employment.
Specifically:
(a)the first defendant, Mr Anthony Bullard, was appointed by the County Court of Victoria in 2006 to act as the plaintiff’s litigation guardian and thereafter undertook the plaintiff’s personal injury litigation in that capacity;
(b)the second defendant, Bullards Solicitors, was the firm of solicitors associated with Mr Bullard at the time of, and during, his appointment as the plaintiff’s litigation guardian;
(c)the third defendant is the representative of the estate of Katherine Wilson in circumstances where Ms Wilson (who passed away in 2022) acted as the solicitor for the plaintiff, engaged by his litigation guardian in the personal injury litigation;
(d)the fourth defendant, Richmond and Bennison Lawyers, is the law firm at which Ms Wilson worked prior to leaving and setting up her own firm and so, it was the firm of solicitors engaged by the plaintiff’s litigation guardian whilst Ms Wilson was employed by them;
(e)the fifth defendant, Melbourne Injury Lawyers, was the firm set up by Ms Wilson, and the firm thereafter engaged by the plaintiff’s litigation guardian to act as solicitors for the plaintiff in his personal injury litigation.
The plaintiff alleges that all of the…

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 Mc Vey v Bullard 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: [2024] VSC 442
Decision Date: 29 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mc Vey v Bullard, the defendants sought summary judgment and, in the alternative, an order to strike out the plaintiff's amended statement of claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff had brought an action against the defendants for damages in tort and breach of contract in relation to an alleged oral agreement concerning the sale of a property. The defendants argued that the plaintiff’s claims had no real prospect of success and that the amended statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action, was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, might embarrass or delay a fair trial or was otherwise an abuse of process.

The court considered whether the plaintiff's claims were legally tenable and whether the amended statement of claim was proper. The defendants contended that the plaintiff's claims in tort and contract were not supported by the evidence and that the amended statement of claim was deficient in multiple respects. The court examined the evidence and legal arguments presented by both parties. It found that the plaintiff's claims did not have a real prospect of success because they were not supported by the evidence. The court also determined that the amended statement of claim failed to disclose a cause of action and was otherwise an abuse of process.

Accordingly, the court granted the defendants' applications for summary judgment and to strike out the amended statement of claim. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims with costs.

Orders