Legal Research
Cases
Morris v Trodden

Morris v Trodden

Case [2015] NSWSC 705 5 June 2015

Limitation Periods

Summary Judgment

Abuse of Process

Discovery & Disclosure

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Morris v Trodden [2015] NSWSC 705
Hearing dates: 25 May 2015
Decision date: 05 June 2015
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Hall J
Decision:
(1)   The Notice of Motion in relation to the orders sought in paragraphs (1) and (2) is dismissed.
(2)   Leave is granted to the plaintiff to file an Amended Statement of Claim within 28 days of the date of these orders.
(3)   Reserve the question of costs.
(4)   Grant liberty to either party to make application in respect of the costs of the application.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal of Statement of Claim – Professional negligence– Civil – Application for summary dismissal of Statement of Claim by defendant/solicitor on the basis that limitation period had expired – Additionally, application made for striking out of Statement of Claim due to embarrassing or defective pleadings – plaintiff claimed damages on the basis of pleaded causes of action in tort, breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct arising from failure to register a transfer of title into the joint names of her former husband and herself as joint tenants – Whether causes of action statute barred by s 14(1) Limitation Act 1969 – Dispute as to when the cause of action accrued – Plaintiff had arguable case that proceedings were brought in time – summary determination of the limitation issue is not appropriate – Undesirable for the limitation issue to be dealt with on an application for summary dismissal – Plaintiff conceded that defects existed in the pleadings – Leave granted to the plaintiff to amend defects in Statement of Claim – Application dismissed
Legislation Cited: Australian Consumer Law
Civil Procedure Act 2002
Competition and Consumer Act 2010
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987
Limitation Act 1969
Trade Practices Act 1974
Cases Cited: Crisp v Blake [1992] ATR 81-158
Dey v Victoria Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1; (1949) 78 CLR 62
Di Sante v Camando Nominees Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 211
Doundoulakis v Antony Sdrinis & Co (1989) VR 781
Forster v Outred & Co [1982] 1 WLR 86
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125
Gillespie v Elliott (1987) 2 Qd R 509
Grazo v Liverpool/Campbelltown Christian School Ltd [2011] NSWSC 292
Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Issa v Issa [2015] NSWSC 112
Melisavon Pty Ltd v Springfield Land Development Corporation Pty Ltd [2014] QCA 233
Pollock v Hicks [2015] NSWCA 122
Scarcella v Lettice (2000) 51 NSWLR 302
Spar Licensing Pty Ltd v MIS Qld Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 50; (2014) 314 ALR 35
Taluja v Orford [2014] NSWSC 714
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Webster v Lampard [1993] Aust Torts Rep 81-236; (1993) 177 CLR 598
Winnote Pty Ltd v Page [2006] NSWCA 287; (2006) 68 NSWLR 531
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Karen Morris (Plaintiff)
David Trodden trading as David…

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 Trodden

Details

AGLC: Morris v Trodden [2015] NSWSC 705
Case: [2015] NSWSC 705
Decision Date: 05 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, Morris v Trodden involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Morris, and the defendant, Trodden, a solicitor. Morris sought damages for professional negligence, alleging that Trodden failed to register a transfer of title into joint names, which led to financial loss when the property was later sold. The claim was based on causes of action in tort, breach of contract, and misleading and deceptive conduct. Trodden applied for summary dismissal of the Statement of Claim, arguing that the actions were statute-barred under section 14(1) of the Limitation Act 1969. Additionally, Trodden sought to strike out parts of the Statement of Claim due to perceived defects in the pleadings.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and whether the pleadings were defective to the point of warranting a strike-out. The court had to determine whether Morris's claims were brought within the requisite time frame and whether the defects in the pleadings were sufficient to warrant striking out the entire Statement of Claim. The court found that there was an arguable case that the proceedings were brought in time, and it was undesirable for the limitation issue to be decided via summary dismissal. The court also acknowledged that Morris conceded the existence of defects in the pleadings.

The court dismissed Trodden's application for summary dismissal but granted Morris leave to amend the defects in the Statement of Claim. The court determined that the limitation issue was not suitable for summary determination and should be addressed in the context of the substantive proceedings. Consequently, the application for striking out the Statement of Claim was also dismissed. The court's decision allowed the case to proceed to trial, subject to Morris's ability to remedy the identified defects in the pleadings.

Orders