Miller v Loel

The plaintiffs brought an action against two defendants, one of whom was a director of the company who lodged a caveat over the land registered in the name of a joint venture party, and the other, a solicitor who acted for the company. The plaintiffs claimed to have suffered loss due to the lodging of the caveat and sought to recover that loss against the solicitor and the director. The defendants applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim and for summary judgment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues were whether it was arguable that the solicitor and/or the director is a person who lodged or continued a caveat under section 130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) and whether certain paragraphs of the amended statement of claim were unnecessary or irrelevant. The court had to decide whether the claims against the defendants were valid and whether the allegations were relevant to the action.

The court dismissed the application for summary judgment by the first defendant but adjourned the application by the second defendant. The court found that paragraphs 20, 25, 50(d), 50(e), 50(j), 51(z), 51(aa), 51(bb), 51(dd), 55(d)(vi), and 57 to 68 of the amended statement of claim were unnecessary or irrelevant and struck them out with no liberty to re-plead. The court also struck out paragraphs 54 and 69C together with the claim for relief against the first defendant for damages on an indemnity basis in respect of abuse of process. The court ordered that any further amended statement of claim be filed and served by the plaintiffs by 1 July 2016.

The court adjourned the question of the costs of the application filed on 23 May 2016 and granted liberty to either party to apply on two days’ notice in writing to the other party.