DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
McMahon v Greer & Ors [2020] QDC 101
PARTIES:
CLARE SUSAN McMAHON
(plaintiff)
v
DAMIEN GREER
(first defendant)
and
DAMIEN GREER LAWYERS
(second defendant)
and
JACOBA BRASCH QC
(third defendant)
and
SARAH DIBLEY
(fourth defendant)
and
JEFFERY BUNNING
(fifth defendant)
FILE NO/S:
BD 3524 of 2019
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:
1 June 2020
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
5 May 2020
JUDGE:
Rinaudo DCJ
ORDER:
1. Summary judgment for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendant against the plaintiff;
2. The plaintiff pay the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants’ costs on the standard basis
3. The plaintiff’s application be dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – GENERALLY – where the first, second and fourth defendants represented the plaintiff in family law proceedings – where the third and fifth defendants were instructed by the first and fourth defendants to appear in relation to such family law proceedings – where the plaintiff makes application for summary judgment – where the first, second and fourth defendants make application for summary judgment – where the third and fifth defendants make application for summary judgment.
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1
Giannarelli v Wraith (1988) 165 CLR 543
Rogers v Roche (No. 1) [2017] 2 Qd R 306COUNSEL:
CS McMahon (Self-Represented)
SJ Williams QC for the first, second and fourth defendants
H Blattman for the third and fifth defendants
SOLICITORS:
Barry Nilsson Lawyers for the first, second and fourth defendants
Carter Newell Lawyers for the third and fifth defendants
By claim and statement of claim, filed in the Brisbane Registry of this Honourable Court, Clare Susan McMahon claimed $700,000 damages, interest accrued from 10 October 2016, costs, such further and/or other relief as this Honourable Court deemed fit and an order that the defendants pay a pecuniary penalty, or a penalty as this Honourable Court deems fit.[1]
[1]File document 1.
Applications have been filed for summary judgment by, on the one hand, the first, second and fourth defendants, who are respectively, Damien Greer (Principal of Damien Greer Lawyers), Damien Greer Lawyers and Sarah Dibley (solicitor employed by Damien Greer Lawyers), who I shall refer collectively to as the solicitor applicants.[2] On the other hand, the third defendant, Dr Jacoba Brasch QC and fifth defendant, Jeffrey Bunning, both barristers to whom I will hereinafter refer to as the barrister applicants.[3]
[2]File document 11.
[3]File document 9.
The plaintiff applicant, Clare Susan McMahon, also makes application for summary judgment and other relief as set out in her application filed 9 April 2020.[4]
[4]File document 13.
The plaintiff applicant’s statement of claim comprises 368 paragraphs and some 39 pages. She sets out on page 37 of the statement of claim the following:
“Duty to…
Continue reading McMahon v Greer
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McMahon v Greer [2020] QDC 101
- Case
- [2020] QDC 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment and whether the defendants were also entitled to summary judgment against the plaintiff. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's application for summary judgment should be granted and if the defendants' applications for summary judgment should be dismissed or allowed.
The court held that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment should be dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief sought and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment against the plaintiff. The reasoning was based on the fact that the first, second, and fourth defendants had represented the plaintiff in the family law proceedings, and the third and fifth defendants were instructed by the first and fourth defendants to appear in relation to those proceedings. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment. Consequently, the court ordered summary judgment for the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth defendants against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants' costs on the standard basis. The plaintiff's application for summary judgment was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Summary judgment for the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendant against the plaintiff;
2. The plaintiff pay the first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants’ costs on the standard basis
3. The plaintiff’s application be dismissed.
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.