Murphy v State of Victoria (Ruling)
[2015] VCC 455
•22 April 2015
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE COMMON LAW DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
GENERAL LIST
Case No. CI-11-01027
| LEONIE JANINE MURPHY | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| STATE OF VICTORIA | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HIS HONOUR JUDGE O'NEILL | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 April 2015 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 22 April 2015 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Murphy v State of Victoria (Ruling) | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VCC 455 | |
RULING
---
Subject: STRIKE-OUT APPLICATION
Catchwords: Alleged failure by defendant to fully and properly answer interrogatories of the plaintiff – application to file further amended statement of claim
Legislation Cited: County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008, r30.07
Cases Cited: Murphy v State of Victoria [2012] VCC 2025
Ruling: The plaintiff’s Summons dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | The plaintiff appeared in person | - |
| For the Defendant | Mr M Manucci | Victorian Government Solicitor |
HIS HONOUR:
1 This proceeding has a long and complex history, including a range of applications by the defendant (“the State”) to strike out Ms Murphy’s Statement of Claim. Its history is set forth in the Judgment of Judge Ginnane (as his Honour then was) of 18 December 2012[1] and various judgments of the Court of Appeal.[2]
[1][2012] VCC 2025
[2]Judgment of Nettle and Osborn JA of 18 October 2013 and Judgment of Warren CJ and Whelan JA of 20 March 2014 – SAPCI 20130116
2 On the most recent occasion, the Court of Appeal reinstated the Statement of Claim, confined specifically to a claim for breach of contract of employment. The Court permitted Ms Murphy to file an Amended Statement of Claim which was marked as exhibit ‘A’ before the Court of Appeal.
3 After that Ruling, Ms Murphy obtained leave before his Honour Judge Carmody on 10 June 2014 to file and serve interrogatories upon the State. No part of his Honour’s Order made reference to the scope of the proposed interrogatories.
4 By a document dated 31 July 2014, Ms Murphy filed 248 Interrogatories for answer by the State. The State provided sworn Answers in an affidavit of Inghard Ehrenberg, sworn 21 October 2014.
5 By a Summons issued 30 March 2015, Ms Murphy seeks that the State’s Defence be struck out on the basis that it has failed to answer the Interrogatories. The Summons is supported by a lengthy affidavit of Ms Murphy, sworn 26 March 2015.
6 Ms Murphy’s Interrogatories are long, rambling, in part indecipherable, and seek answers to questions outside the confines of Ms Murphy’s Statement of Claim, as limited by the decision of the Court of Appeal.
7 The State has attempted to answer the Interrogatories, although most of the Answers take objection on various bases, in particular that the Interrogatory does not relate to any question between the parties.
8 It is clear from the nature of the questions asked that Ms Murphy has not confined the Interrogatories to the allegations of breach of contract contained in the Amended Statement of Claim. Rather, Ms Murphy maintains a range of allegations concerning the conduct of members of the police force in the course of her employment, including bullying, victimisation, harassment and the like, as a result of which she alleges she suffered injury. In reality, Ms Murphy’s claim is confined to a breach of employment agreement, where it is alleged the State failed to reinstate Ms Murphy to her position as an administrative assistant, as a result of which she suffered a loss of various employment benefits. Few of the Interrogatories are directed to that issue.
9 I have read all of the Interrogatories, and the State’s answers. I have read Ms Murphy’s affidavit in support. In my view, the objections taken by the State to the various Interrogatories are properly made, and accord with the grounds of objection provided in Rule 30.07 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008. Under cover of the objections taken, the State has provided some answers to Ms Murphy’s enquiries which appear to me to be relevant to the issue the subject of the pleading.
10 In my view, the Answers provided by the State are appropriate, and I uphold the objections taken.
11 Ms Murphy’s Summons fails.
12 At the hearing, Ms Murphy sought leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim. The basis of that application related to the fact that the Statement of Claim filed before the Court of Appeal by counsel who appeared pro bono for Ms Murphy, was somewhat rushed, and as said by the Court of Appeal “not as well expressed as it might be (due no doubt to the circumstances of its preparation)”.[3]
[3]At paragraph 13
13 In my view, none of the proposed amendments ought be allowed for the following reasons:
(a) Many add nothing to the existing pleading.
(b) Some represent opinions or arguments of Ms Murphy rather than matters of fact or law properly pleaded.
(c) Some relate to matters which are not the subject of the existing, confined pleading.
(d) In the case of particulars sought to be appended to paragraph (6), purport to put matters which will be the subject of evidence at trial.
14 Ms Murphy’s application to file the Amended Statement of Claim is refused.
15 I shall hear from the parties further as to consequent orders.
- - -
0