Noye v Gwilliam - [2001] WASC 58

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: NOYE & ANOR -v- GWILLIAM [2001] WASC 58

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 2 NOVEMBER 2000

DELIVERED : 2 NOVEMBER 2000

PUBLISHED : 7 MARCH 2001

FILE NO/S: CIV 1849 of 1999

BETWEEN: JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
First Plaintiff
LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN
Second Plaintiff
AND
EDWARD CLAYTON GWILLIAM
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim when plaintiffs in person - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Statement of claim allowed to stand

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff                :     In person
Second Plaintiff            :     In person
Defendant:     Mr T Darbyshire

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff                :     In person
Second Plaintiff            :     In person
Defendant:     Kott Gunning

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474
Noye & Anor v Gwilliam [2000] WASC 206
Smith v McCusker QC & Anor [2000] WASCA 320

Case(s) also cited:

Everett v Ribbands [1952] 2 QB 198
Ghani v Jones (1970) 1 QB 693
Gibbs v Rea [1998] 3 WLR 72
Wan v Sweetman (1998) 19 WAR 94

MASTER SANDERSON: This is effectively the plaintiff's application for leave to amend their statement of claim in terms of a minute of proposed substituted statement of claim filed 18 September 2000. This minute was the latest in a long line of amended statements of claim. I have traced the history of the strike‑out applications and the attempts by the plaintiffs to produce an adequate pleading in earlier reasons: See Noye & Anor v Gwilliam [2000] WASC 206. I need not repeat what I said in those earlier reasons, however, it may be necessary to refer to the earlier decision to put this decision in context.
At the conclusion of the hearing I indicated to the parties that I would allow the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim in terms of the minute. I indicated that I would publish my reasons at a later date. These are those reasons.
The plaintiffs in this action are litigants in person. The causes of action which they are seeking to plead are somewhat unusual and it is to be expected they would have difficulty framing a proper statement of claim. That reality must be recognised when the defendant's objections to the form of the statement of claim are considered. In Smith v McCusker QC & Anor [2000] WASCA 320 the Full Court was dealing with an appeal by litigants in person whose statement of claim had been struck out. Templeman J, after acknowledging a lengthy delay in the prosecution of the proceedings by the appellant, said (at [212]):
"… However, the delay is due in part to the respondents' persistent objection to the form of the Smiths' pleadings. That objection has been justified in the sense that a litigant is required to comply with the rules of pleading. However, the Court should, I think, approach matters involving litigants in person with a degree of flexibility. The power to dispense with pleadings illustrates that…

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 Noye v Gwilliam

Details

AGLC: Noye v Gwilliam [2001] WASC 58
Case: [2001] WASC 58
Decision Date: 7 MARCH 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Noye v Gwilliam involved an application by the defendant to strike out a statement of claim filed by the plaintiffs who appeared in person. The plaintiffs, Noye and another, brought an action against the defendant, Gwilliam, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained in an incident. The dispute centred on whether the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim should be granted, considering the plaintiffs' appearance in person and the procedural requirements under the law.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiffs' appearance in person satisfied the procedural requirements for bringing an action and whether the statement of claim contained sufficient particulars to allow the case to proceed. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs, appearing in person, complied with the necessary procedural formalities and whether the statement of claim met the minimum standards of pleading.

In examining the procedural requirements, the court considered that the plaintiffs' appearance in person did not necessarily render the proceeding invalid if they were otherwise compliant with the necessary formalities. The court held that the plaintiffs' in person appearance was not inherently problematic if the procedural requirements were satisfied. The court also noted that the statement of claim, while not perfectly drafted, contained sufficient particulars to allow the case to proceed to trial. Consequently, the court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim, finding that the plaintiffs had complied with the necessary procedural requirements and that the statement of claim was sufficient to proceed.

As a result of the court's decision, the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim was dismissed, and the case proceeded to trial. The plaintiffs' appearance in person, combined with the adequacy of the statement of claim, allowed the proceedings to continue without prejudice to the defendant's rights. The court's ruling emphasised that each case turns on its own facts and that procedural requirements must be strictly adhered to, but flexibility may be exercised in the interest of justice.

Orders