McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd

Case [2017] QCA 259

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

McQueen & Anor v Mount Isa Mines Ltd & Ors; CMA Assets Pty Ltd & Anor v Mount Isa Mines Ltd & Ors [2017] QCA 259

PARTIES:

In Appeal No 12902 of 2016:

SHAUN WILLIAM McQUEEN
(first appellant)
IPA PERSONNEL PTY LTD
ACN 060 472 666
(second appellant)
v
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
ACN 009 661 447
(first respondent)
CMA ASSETS PTY LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
ACN 112 821 735
(second respondent)
LEE WHALE
(third respondent)

In Appeal No 12910 of 2016:

CMA ASSETS PTY LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
ACN 112 821 735
(first appellant)
LEE WHALE
(second appellant)
v
MOUNT ISA MINES LIMITED
ACN 009 661 447
(first respondent)
SHAUN WILLIAM McQUEEN
(second respondent)
IPA PERSONNEL PTY LTD
ACN 060 472 666
(third respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 12902 of 2016
Appeal No 12910 of 2016
SC No 9066 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeals

ORIGINATING COURT:


Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2016] QSC 260 (Flanagan J)

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 May 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and McMurdo JJA and Brown J

ORDERS:

In Appeal No 12902 of 2016:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Costs to follow the event.

In Appeal No 12910 of 2016:

1.   Appeal dismissed.

2.   Costs to follow the event.

CATCHWORDS:

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – GENERAL MATTERS – AMENDMENT OF ORIGINATING PROCESSES AND PLEADINGS OUTSIDE LIMITATION PERIOD – AMENDMENTS INTRODUCING NEW CAUSE OF ACTION OR PARTICULARISING CAUSE OF ACTION –  where Mount Isa Mines Ltd (MIM) brought an action against various defendants (the appellants) alleging breaches of contract and negligence – where MIM filed and served an amended statement of claim without first seeking leave to do so – where the appellants allege that the amended statement of claim added new causes of action which were out of time and for which leave was required – where the appellants applied to have various paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out with no liberty to re-plead – where the primary judge refused the application – whether the primary judge erred – whether the amended statement of claim pleaded new causes of action – whether “cause of action” has a different meaning under the Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) than under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – LIMITATION OF PARTICULAR ACTIONS – SIMPLE CONTRACTS, QUASI-CONTRACTS AND TORTS – ACCRUAL OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – TORTS – GENERALLY – where the amended statement of claim pleaded additional loss – where the appellants contend that the causal link between the alleged tortious breach and the consequential loss was first pleaded in the amended statement of claim – where the appellants contend that the amended statement of claim added a new cause of action by pleading a different case on causation – whether the statement of claim pleaded material facts of the causal connection between the alleged negligence and the consequential damage –…

Continue reading McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McQueen v Mount Isa Mines Ltd [2017] QCA 259
Case
[2017] QCA 259
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mount Isa Mines Ltd (MIM) brought an action against various defendants, including the appellants, alleging breaches of contract and negligence. MIM filed and served an amended statement of claim without first seeking leave to do so. The appellants argued that the amended statement of claim introduced new causes of action which were out of time and for which leave was required. They applied to have various paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out with no liberty to re-plead. The primary judge refused the application. The appellants appealed the decision, arguing that the primary judge erred in not striking out the amended statement of claim.

The court examined whether the primary judge erred in finding that the amended statement of claim did not introduce new causes of action, and whether the "cause of action" has a different meaning under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) than under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court found that the amended statement of claim did not introduce new causes of action, but rather particularised the causes of action already pleaded by the original statement of claim. The court also found that the meaning of "cause of action" under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) is the same. The court held that the primary judge did not err in refusing the application to strike out the amended statement of claim.

The court dismissed the appeals and ordered costs to follow the event. The court held that the appellants' arguments were without merit and that the primary judge's decision was correct. The court found that the amended statement of claim did not introduce new causes of action, but rather particularised the causes of action already pleaded by the original statement of claim. The court also held that the meaning of "cause of action" under the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) and the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) is the same. The court dismissed the appeals and ordered costs to follow the event.

Orders

Orders of the court

In Appeal No 12902 of 2016:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Costs to follow the event.

In Appeal No 12910 of 2016:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Costs to follow the event.

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.