Legal Research
Cases
Norman v Wall (No 7)

Norman v Wall (No 7)

Case [2021] NSWSC 222 9 March 2021

Appeal

Abuse of Process

Standing

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Norman v Wall (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 222
Hearing dates: 9 March 2021
Date of orders: 9 March 2021
Decision date: 09 March 2021
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:
(1) Refuse leave to the plaintiff to rely upon a further iteration of the Statement of Claim provided on 8 March 2021
(2) Refuse leave to the plaintiffs to file and rely upon the proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 December 2020.
(3) Pursuant to UCPR 12.7 and 13.4 I dismiss the proceedings.
(4) The plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s costs of the plaintiff’s application to amend the Statement of Claim and the costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – several opportunities to re-plead – self-represented litigants – pro bono legal assistance terminated by plaintiffs - proceedings dismissed for want of due despatch and abuse of process

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175; [2009] HCA 2007
Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9 Ch App 244
Bauskias v Liew [2013] NSWCA 2009
Dickens, a pseudonym, v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 222
Dickens v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2018] NSWSC 485
Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2012] VSC A97
Norman v Wall [2020] NSWSC 129
Norman v Wall (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 997
Norman v Wall (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 998
Norman v Wall (No 4) [2020] NSWSC 999
Norman v Wall (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1062
Norman v Wall (No 6) [2020] NSWSC 1211

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Gillian Linda Norman (First Plaintiff)
Ron Berry (Second Plaintiff)
Wrothwell Wall (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Raftery (Defendant)
Solicitors:
G Norman (Self-Represented)
R Berry (Self-Represented)
Gilchrist Connell Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2019/196798
Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX TEMPORE Judgment

These proceedings were commenced in the Equity Division of this Court on 25 June 2019. The initial statement of claim identified various defendants as having been involved in a type of property brokering deal for a proposed community development that involved two properties at Mount Burrell. It was alleged that there was a trust account set up, which had associated with it particular plans, and various people paid sums of money into it, including Ms Norman and Mr Berry.
There was, amongst other things, pleaded in this document various potential causes of action, including failure of fiduciary duty by a solicitor, the defendant, Mr Wall. It was evident that pleading was prepared without the assistance of legal advice.
The matter came before Darke J in the Real Property List on 2 August 2019. Darke J made various orders directing the plaintiffs to serve upon the defendant a further amended statement of claim by a date in September 2019.
On 27 September 2019 the matter was listed before Darke J again. At that point a notice of discontinuance was filed which effectively…

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 Norman v Wall (No 7)

Details

AGLC: Norman v Wall (No 7) [2021] NSWSC 222
Case: [2021] NSWSC 222
Decision Date: 09 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norman v Wall (No 7) involved the plaintiff, Norman, and the defendant, Wall. Norman initiated proceedings against Wall, and the dispute pertained to matters related to a property transaction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Norman, a self-represented litigant, was provided with pro bono legal assistance but later terminated this assistance. The legal issues before the court centred on whether Norman had properly pursued the proceedings and whether the dismissal of the case was justified on grounds of want of due despatch and abuse of process.

The court examined the procedural history of the case, noting that Norman had been given several opportunities to re-plead and had been provided with legal assistance. Despite these opportunities, Norman terminated the pro bono legal assistance and continued to pursue the proceedings without legal representation. The court was required to determine whether Norman's conduct amounted to an abuse of process and whether the proceedings should be dismissed for want of due despatch. The court found that Norman had failed to prosecute the matter diligently and had, on several occasions, wasted the court's time. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed for want of due despatch and as an abuse of process.

The court's decision was based on the extensive procedural history of the case, the self-represented status of Norman, and the termination of legal assistance. The court held that Norman had not acted in a manner that warranted the continuation of the proceedings and that the dismissal was justified on the grounds of abuse of process and want of due despatch. The final orders of the court dismissed the proceedings and noted that no costs were to be awarded.

Orders