Murdoch Lawyers Pty Ltd v Gouldson

The case of Murdoch Lawyers Pty Ltd v Gouldson concerns an application to set aside a decision made by a registrar of the Queensland Supreme Court to renew a claim. The plaintiffs, who had filed a claim on 11 September 2017, sought damages for professional negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranties under the Australian Consumer Law. The claim was due to lapse on 11 September 2018 due to non-service of the defendants, who were lawyers and accountants involved in previous family law proceedings with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs applied ex parte for an extension of the claim period, which was granted by the registrar on 7 September 2018. The defendants subsequently applied to set aside this order, arguing that the delay in serving the claim was not strictly necessary to ensure the claim could be properly pleaded, and that limitation periods likely expired during the delay.

The legal issue before the court was whether there was "another good reason" to renew the claim under rule 24(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay in serving the claim, which was intended to ensure a reasonable basis for the claim. The court noted that while the delay was not strictly necessary to properly plead the claim, it was not unreasonable given the complexity of the case. The court also considered the defendants' requests for further and better particulars, extensions of time to file their defences, and their application to have the matter placed on the supervised case list. The court held that the delay in serving the claim was justified and that there was "another good reason" to renew the claim.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the registrar's order, finding that the registrar was satisfied that there was "another good reason to renew the claim". The court held that the delay in serving the claim was not unreasonable, and that the defendants had not demonstrated any prejudice that would warrant setting aside the registrar's order. The court also noted that the defendants' requests for further and better particulars, extensions of time to file their defences, and their application to have the matter placed on the supervised case list did not demonstrate any prejudice that would warrant setting aside the registrar's order. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the defendants pay the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the applications.