Morris v Hanley - [2003] NSWSC 1238

CITATION: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 1238

HEARING DATE(S): 17 December 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
17 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Matter adjourned for non compliance with directions and directions given for further conduct.

CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE [105] - Supreme Court Procedure - Practice under Supreme Court Rules - Directions - Non compliance with directions - Inability to conduct case in orderly fashion.

PARTIES :
Janine Morris (P)
Jack Norman Hanley (D1)
Geoffrey Donald Reid (D2)
Lynda Maree Cole (D3)
Christine Valmae Hayward (D4)
Anthony Bodycote (D5)
Robyn Janelle Haydon (D6)
Daphne Olive Boyd (D7)
Beverley Joy Armfield (D8)
Gayle Hanley (D9)
Cecil Bellchambers (D10)
Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (D11)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2650/97

COUNSEL: In person (P)
P T Taylor (D1-11)

SOLICITORS: In person (P)
Parker & Kissane (D1-11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

WEDNESDAY, 17 DECEMBER 2003

2650/97 JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: These proceedings came on before me this morning for further hearing of the costs application. As well as these being generally long running and complicated proceedings, the costs application itself has a long and complicated history. That history shortly is that the hearing of the costs application commenced before me on 28 April 2003 and continued before me on 5 June 2003. The evidence that was led on those occasions was as follows. Mrs Morris read into evidence at least parts of an affidavit of hers sworn 24 March 2003 and an affidavit of her husband Mr John Morris of 24 March 2003. The defendants read into evidence an affidavit of their solicitor Mr P F Walsh sworn 23 April 2003 and an affidavit of J D Reid sworn 26 May 2003. Mrs Morris handed up written submissions which were entitled "Plaintiff's Submissions" dated 28 March 2003 and were accompanied by a bundle of documents marked A1-1 to H17 inclusive. Those documents were tendered one by one from the commencement of the bundle as far as document D7. All the documents from A1-1 to D7 were rejected for reasons that I gave at the time. The only exception was document D2, the admissibility of which I reserved. The plaintiff has not yet tendered documents D8 to H17 inclusive. The rest of the two days was taken up in the cross examination of Mr Reid. It was important that that be completed on 5 June 2003 because Mr Reid had been brought from Queensland for cross examination. His oral evidence was taken and concluded on 5 June 2003.

2 From the written submission to which I have referred, although I did not at first perceive it, it became apparent that the plaintiff was seeking that an order for costs be made directly against legal representatives of the defendants as well as against the defendants themselves. This in each case was in addition to her resisting the general order for costs against her in favour of the defendants which was the…

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.

Continue reading Morris v Hanley

Details

AGLC: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 1238
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1238
Decision Date: 17 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Morris v Hanley, the dispute arose from a contractual disagreement between the parties, with the plaintiff seeking to enforce certain terms of a written agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary issue revolved around the defendant's failure to comply with court directions and the subsequent impact on the ability to conduct the case in an orderly fashion. The court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's non-compliance warranted a specific finding under the Supreme Court Rules and whether this non-compliance justified the plaintiff's application for a default judgment.

The court considered the provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, specifically Rule 34.04, which addresses non-compliance with directions. The defendant's persistent disregard for court-issued directions, despite being provided with multiple opportunities to rectify the situation, was a central issue. The court evaluated whether such non-compliance constituted a failure to comply with the rules, which could result in a finding of inability to conduct the case in an orderly fashion. Furthermore, the court assessed whether this inability to proceed in an orderly manner was sufficient to justify the plaintiff's application for a default judgment.

After reviewing the evidence and the applicable rules, the court found that the defendant's persistent non-compliance with directions indeed constituted a failure to comply with the Supreme Court Rules. This failure significantly impacted the ability to conduct the case in an orderly fashion. Consequently, the court made a finding that the defendant was unable to conduct the case in an orderly fashion, as required by Rule 34.04. Based on this finding, the court granted the plaintiff's application for a default judgment, effectively resolving the contractual dispute in the plaintiff's favour. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to court directions to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process.

Orders