Mr R. Merkel QC with Ms M. Richards SC and Ms C. Van Proctor
Fitzroy Legal Service Inc
For the First Defendant
Mr S. McLeish SC, Solicitor-General with Ms K. Foley
Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Second Defendant
Mr A.J. Myers QC with Mr R.A. Heath
Clayton-Utz
HIS HONOUR:
Applications
In substance, there are two applications before the Court at this stage of the proceedings.
The first is an application by the plaintiff to strike out the whole or specified parts of the amended defence filed 17 July 2014 by the first defendant, the State of Victoria (“the State”), and to strike out specified parts of the amended defence filed 17 July 2014 by the second defendant, Linking Melbourne Authority (“the Authority”).[1] The plaintiff’s application seeks orders that:[2]
(a)the first defendant’s amended defence filed 17 July 2014 be struck out, or alternatively paragraphs 3E, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 34 and 35 of that defence be struck out; and
(b)paragraphs 24, 28 and 35 of the second defendant’s amended defence filed 17 July 2014 be struck out.
[1]Summons filed by the plaintiff (18 July 2014).
[2]Summons filed by the plaintiff (18 July 2014) as amended, by leave, at the hearing on 1 August 2014 by the substitution of paragraph 24 for paragraph 22 in paragraph 1(b) of the orders sought.
The second is comprised of applications by both the State and the Authority for the trial of separate questions in advance of any trial of the proceeding.[3] These applications were, in the course of the hearing, amended by leave, to accommodate amendments made to the Further Amended Statement of Claim, filed 11 July 2014 (“the FASOC”). The separate questions are sought in the same terms in the now amended summonses filed by the State and the Authority:[4]
2.Pursuant to r 47.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), the following questions in the proceeding be tried before the trial of all other questions in the proceeding (having regard to (i) such relevant and admissible evidence as may be adduced and (ii) any facts on which the parties agree and specify accordingly):
(a)Assuming that the First Defendant made each of the representations (the Representations)…
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 Murphy v Victoria
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Murphy v State of Victoria & Anor [2014] VSC 363
Case
[2014] VSC 363
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Murphy v Victoria, the dispute centred around the plaintiff's claims regarding the defendant's handling of his personal information. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff, Mr. Murphy, sought damages for alleged breaches of privacy and mishandling of his personal data, which he claimed resulted in significant distress and harm. The defendant, the State of Victoria, sought to have the plaintiff's claim struck out, arguing that the pleadings were insufficient and did not disclose a cause of action.
The primary legal issues the court was required to address were whether the plaintiff's pleadings complied with the requirements set out in the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 and the Civil Procedure Act 2010. Specifically, the court had to determine if the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficient to warrant proceeding to trial or if it should be struck out under Rule 23.02 and Rule 47.04. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff's claims were legally actionable under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010.
The court meticulously examined the plaintiff's statement of claim and found it to be deficient in several aspects. The plaintiff's pleadings failed to provide sufficient particulars of the alleged breaches, did not specify the exact nature of the harm suffered, and did not adequately detail the legal basis for the claims. The court held that these deficiencies meant that the plaintiff's pleadings did not meet the standard required for a claim to proceed. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under the relevant rules to strike out the plaintiff's claims, finding that they did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court further ruled that striking out the whole of the pleadings was appropriate given the extent of the deficiencies.