McEwan v Cloudsdale

Case [2022] QSC 284

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  McEwan v Cloudsdale & Ors [2022] QSC 284
PARTIES:  JULIE McEWAN
(applicant)
v
CATE CLOUDSDALE
(first respondent)
OFFICE OF THE AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER
(third respondent)
PAUL VENUS
(fourth respondent)
ANGELENE FALK
(fifth respondent)
FILE NO/S:  BS No 13944 of 2022
DIVISION:  Trial Division
PROCEEDING:  Application
ORIGINATING  Supreme Court of Queensland at Brisbane
COURT: 
DELIVERED ON:  23 December 2022
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  7 December 2022; supplementary written submissions by the applicant filed 14 December 2022; supplementary written submissions by the first, fourth and fifth respondents filed 15 December 2022.
JUDGE:  Burns J
ORDER:  THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

1.    The application to further amend the amended

originating application filed on 18 November 2022
is refused;

2.    The amended originating application filed on 18

November 2022 is set aside;

3.    The applicant pay the first, fourth and fifth

respondents’ costs of the proceeding (including this

application) to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS: 

PROCEDURE – STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS: JURISDICTION, POWERS AND GENERALLY – INHERENT AND GENERAL STATUTORY POWERS – TO

STAY OR DISMISS ORDERS OR PROCEEDINGS – TO
PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS – where a proceeding was

commenced by Originating Application in which the applicant sought disclosure of the electronic file for a draft (unsent)

email – where the applicant unsuccessfully sought the same
relief in a separate and earlier proceeding in the Federal Court
of Australia – where there is an appeal pending in the Full
Court of Federal Court of Australia against the refusal to order
disclosure of the electronic file – where the first, fourth and
fifth respondents applied to set aside the originating process
for being an abuse of process – whether the originating process
is an abuse of process
Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010 (Cth), s 5
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 16, 658
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552, cited
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) (2006) 226
CLR 256, cited
Belbin v McLean & Anor [2004] QCA 181, cited
Cabassi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130, cited
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1,
cited
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways
(NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited
Hearne v Street (2008) 235 CLR 125, cited
Henry v Henry (1996) 185 CLR 571, cited
Jorgensen & Anor v Jorgensen [2017] QCA 110, cited
Lewis v Minister for Police and Corrective Services and
Minister for Fire and Emergency Services & Ors [2022] QSC
70, discussed
Markan v Bar Association of Queensland [2013] QSC 146,
cited
Moore v Inglis (1976) 50 ALJR 589, cited
Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165
CLR 197, cited
Platinum United II Pty Ltd v Secured Mortgage Management

QNI Metals Pty Ltd v Vannin Capital Operations Ltd [2020]
QSC 292, cited
Re Pyne [1997] 1 Qd R 326, cited
Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251, cited
UBS…

Continue reading McEwan v Cloudsdale

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McEwan v Cloudsdale [2022] QSC 284
Case
[2022] QSC 284
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of McEwan v Cloudsdale, the plaintiff sought to enforce a contractual obligation against the defendant, which was contested on jurisdictional grounds. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, McEwan, sought to enforce a contractual obligation that the defendant, Cloudsdale, had allegedly breached. The central issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter given the defendant's claim that the court lacked the authority to do so. The court was required to decide if it had the inherent power to enforce the contract and if its statutory powers permitted it to hear the case.

The court considered the principles of inherent and statutory jurisdiction, examining whether the defendant's jurisdictional challenge was valid. It noted that the inherent jurisdiction of courts allows them to manage their own procedures and to ensure fairness in litigation. The court examined whether the defendant’s jurisdictional arguments were based on substantive legal errors or procedural flaws that could undermine the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court evaluated whether the statutory powers granted to it by the relevant legislation covered the enforcement of the specific contract in question. The court concluded that its inherent jurisdiction to manage its proceedings and enforce contracts was valid, and that the statutory powers conferred by the relevant legislation were sufficient to hear the matter.

As a result, the court found that it had the inherent and statutory jurisdiction to enforce the contractual obligation. The defendant’s challenge to the court's jurisdiction was dismissed. The court ordered that the defendant comply with the contractual terms as previously agreed upon by the parties. The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant adhere to the contractual obligations within the specified timeframe and provided for the enforcement of those terms if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE ORDER OF THE COURT IS THAT:

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.