Miller v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd - [2021] WADC 119

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   MILLER -v- COLES GROUP SUPPLY CHAIN PTY LTD [2021] WADC 119
CORAM:   PRIOR DCJ
HEARD:   24 NOVEMBER 2021
DELIVERED          :   Ex tempore
FILE NO/S:   CIV 521 of 2021
BETWEEN:   PETER RODNEY MILLER
Plaintiff
AND
COLES GROUP SUPPLY CHAIN PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Appeal - Appeal by defendant from deputy registrar's decision on application for further and better particulars of plaintiff's claim

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005 (WA), r 15(1), r 15(6)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 20 r 13

Result:

Defendant's appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr D J Mezger
Defendant	:	Mr R J Carey

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Chapmans Barristers & Solicitors
Defendant	:	McCabes

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; (2006) 33 WAR 82
Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47; (2000) 203 CLR 194
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658
Guy v Hampson [2019] WADC 19
Hazart Pty Ltd v Rademaker (1993) 11 WAR 26
Stewart v Hames [2019] WASCA 127

PRIOR DCJ:

Background

[This decision was delivered extemporaneously on 24 November 2021 and edited from the transcript.]

The plaintiff has commenced proceedings against the defendant for damages for negligence for personal injuries he suffered in a workplace accident on 27 March 2019 when he was unloading a truck in Forrest Lakes.
At present, both causation and damages are in dispute. The plaintiff was also injured in a motor vehicle accident subsequent to his workplace accident.
This is an appeal by the defendant against the deputy registrar's decision of 12 August 2021 (the decision) dismissing the defendant's application for an order that the plaintiff provide further and better particulars of the statement of claim filed on 26 February 2021.
The defendant by his application dated 1 April 2021 sought further and better particulars of the following:
5As to paragraph 14 of the statement of claim, provide full particulars of the nature of the injury alleged to have been sustained to the Plaintiff's:
5.1lower back;
5.2left ankle; and
5.3left hand.
6As to paragraph 15(a) of the statement of claim, provide full particulars of the nature of the surgery.
Before the defendant filed its defence, it had requested further and better particulars from the plaintiff and the request was refused. The defendant has complied with O 20 r 13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA).
The application by the defendant for further and better particulars was supported by affidavits sworn by Josephine Courtney on 22 June 2021 and 13 July 2021. These affidavits set out the history of the defendant's attempts to obtain further and better particulars from the plaintiff.
The defendant's solicitors advised the plaintiff's solicitors on 15 June 2021 that it considered the plaintiff's pleadings of his alleged injuries was imprecise and insufficient to enable the defendant to either understand the case against it, sensibly prepare to…

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 Miller v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd 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: [2021] WADC 119
Decision Date: 24 NOVEMBER 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Miller v Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Miller, bringing an action against the defendant, Coles Group Supply Chain Pty Ltd, in the Federal Circuit Court. Miller's claim arose from an alleged breach of statutory duty under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. The dispute centred on whether Miller had provided sufficient particulars in his statement of claim to allow Coles Group to adequately respond. The matter was brought before the court following a decision by the deputy registrar, which the defendant sought to appeal.

The legal issues for the court to determine were whether Miller's statement of claim contained sufficient particulars of his claim to meet the requirements of the court's rules and, if not, whether an order for further and better particulars should be made. The court was required to balance Miller's right to bring a claim against the need to ensure that Coles Group had enough information to respond appropriately. The court needed to consider whether the information provided by Miller was adequate and whether any deficiencies could be remedied by further particulars.

In delivering the decision, the court considered the relevant provisions of the Federal Circuit Court Rules and the applicable authorities. It was noted that while the particulars in Miller's statement of claim were sparse, they did provide some basis for the claim. The court found that the information was insufficient to enable Coles Group to properly respond, but that the deficiencies could be remedied by further particulars. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision of the deputy registrar to grant Miller an opportunity to provide further and better particulars was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that parties have enough information to adequately defend themselves while also protecting the plaintiff's right to bring a claim.

Orders