McMahon v Greer

Case [2020] QDC 101


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 306

Wilson v Carter [2005] NSWSC 1351

COUNSEL:

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

  1. 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.

  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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
McMahon v Greer [2020] QDC 101
Case
[2020] QDC 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of McMahon v Greer involved the plaintiff seeking summary judgment against five defendants in civil proceedings. The dispute arose out of family law matters, where the first, second, and fourth defendants had represented the plaintiff. The third and fifth defendants were instructed by the first and fourth defendants to appear in relation to these family law proceedings. The plaintiff filed an application for summary judgment, while the first, second, and fourth defendants, along with the third and fifth defendants, also filed their respective applications for summary judgment.

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.