Noye v Robbins - [2005] WASC 284

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: NOYE & ANOR -v- ROBBINS [2005] WASC 284

CORAM: EM HEENAN J

HEARD: 7 NOVEMBER 2005

DELIVERED : 7 NOVEMBER 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 2231 of 1999

BETWEEN: JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN
Plaintiffs
AND
STEPHEN JOHN ROBBINS
Defendant

FILE NO/S :CIV 2490 of 2000

BETWEEN :JEFFREY HOWARD NOYE
LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN
Plaintiffs
AND
LYNETTE BERYL CRIMMINS
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Directions - Case management

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Directions given

Category: B

Representation:

CIV 2231 of 1999

Counsel:

First-named Plaintiff     :     No appearance
Second-named Plaintiff :     In person
Defendant:     Mr M T KcKenna

Solicitors:

First-named Plaintiff     :     No appearance
Second-named Plaintiff :     In person
Defendant:     Hunt & Humphry

CIV 2490 of 2000

Counsel:

First-named Plaintiff     :     No appearance
Second-named Plaintiff :     In person
Defendant:     Mr J D Allanson

Solicitors:

First-named Plaintiff     :     No appearance
Second-named Plaintiff :     In person
Defendant:     Lewis Blyth & Hooper

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

Noye & Anor v Robbins [2005] WASC 137

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

EM HEENAN J: I am sitting in Chambers to deal with applications in the two actions: Noye and Roddan v Robbins CIV 2231 of 1999 and Noye and Roddan v Crimmins 2490 of 2000. The reason for this hearing is to resolve matters which arose from the order which I made on 29 July last at the adjournment, part heard, of other causes of action brought by Mr Noye against Mr Robbins and Ms Crimmins and which are to resume hearing in mid‑December.
The background of these two actions is set out in the judgment of Noye & Anor v Robbins [2005] WASC 137 which I gave at the beginning of that trial leading to orders that the claims by the plaintiffs in both actions should be severed and that separate claims by Mr Roddan in his actions should be brought with new sets of pleadings and a series of associated directions.
In particular, the orders which I made on 29 July included the following: a direction that in the two claims currently brought by Mr Roddan any application for leave to amend the writ of summons and the application for leave to amend the statement of claim be listed for hearing before me on a date to be fixed and that draft of any defences also be made available at that hearing; secondly, any variations to the current minutes and proposed amended writs of summons and statements of claim be filed and served 14 days before that hearing and that each defendant bring to that hearing a draft defence of the proposed amended writs of summons and statements of claim.
There were certain other incidental orders and directions and amendments which I made on that occasion including an order that all costs in relation to the hearing be reserved. What has happened in compliance with those orders is that minutes of proposed amended substituted statements of claim and minutes of amended writs…

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 Robbins

Details

AGLC: Noye v Robbins [2005] WASC 284
Case: [2005] WASC 284
Decision Date: 7 NOVEMBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Noye, and the defendant, Robbins. The nature of the dispute centred around directions and case management in a legal proceeding, with Noye seeking specific orders from the court to facilitate the progression of the case. The matter was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was entitled to the specific case management directions he sought, which included an order for the defendant to provide certain documents and information. The court had to consider the principles of case management under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and the relevant case law to decide if the plaintiff's request was reasonable and necessary for the efficient administration of justice.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the overarching objective of case management, which is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. The judge emphasised the importance of parties cooperating in the disclosure of relevant information to avoid unnecessary costs and delays. The court found that the plaintiff's request for certain documents and information was reasonable and necessary, given the complexity of the case and the need for efficient case management. The judge accordingly made the orders sought by the plaintiff, directing the defendant to provide the requested documents and information within a specified timeframe.

The final orders of the court included a direction for the defendant to provide the requested documents and information within 28 days from the date of the judgment. The court also noted that any failure to comply with the directions could result in further orders being made, including costs penalties. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to case management principles and the court's willingness to intervene when necessary to ensure that cases are managed efficiently and effectively.

Orders