Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council - [2022] QSC 75

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v Mackay Regional Council [2022] QSC 75

PARTIES:

OORALEA DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 144 745 353
(first plaintiff)
FARNSCASTLE PTY LTD
ACN 010 473 828
(second plaintiff)
COUGAR DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 626 283 047
(third plaintiff)
BRUCE HIGHWAY FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 624 446 028
(fourth plaintiff)
STOCKROUTE ROAD FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 624 450 077
(fifth plaintiff)
TEMPLES LANE FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 624 447 856
(sixth plaintiff)
COWLEYS ROAD FARMING PTY LTD
ACN 624 449 314
(seventh plaintiff)
AJANA DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 637 688 174
(eighth plaintiff)
HEWBRIDGE PTY LTD
ACN 010 647 560
(ninth plaintiff)
BAKERS CREEK DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 118 020 581

(tenth plaintiff)

v
MACKAY REGIONAL COUNCIL

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 12262 of 2020

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 March 2022

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDER:

1. The plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim filed 22 June 2021 is struck out. The plaintiffs have leave to replead.

2. I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiffs’ case arises out of discussions held between agents of some of the plaintiffs and the defendant – where the plaintiffs make claims based on unconscionability, negligence, breach of statutory obligations, misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract – where the 3^rd to 8^th plaintiffs were registered on dates after the alleged representations and agreements were made – whether the 3^rd to 8^th plaintiffs have no real prospect of succeeding on all or part of their claim – whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim – whether summary judgment should be given with respect to these plaintiffs pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiffs plead claims for breach of a statutory obligation to act in good faith and an unfair, unreasonable and inequitable exercise of power – whether these claims have no real prospect of succeeding – whether there is no need for a trial of these claims – whether summary judgment should be given with respect to these claims pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the defendant seeks to have the whole amended statement of claim struck out – where, alternatively, the defendant seeks to have certain identified paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QSC 75
Decision Date: 11 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd v Mackay Regional Council, the plaintiffs, Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd and others, initiated proceedings against the defendant, Mackay Regional Council. The plaintiffs alleged various claims arising from discussions between their agents and the defendant, including unconscionability, negligence, breach of statutory obligations, misleading and deceptive conduct, and breach of contract. The case involved the timing of the plaintiffs' registration and their capacity to bring the claims, which was central to the dispute. The Mackay Regional Council argued that the plaintiffs, specifically those registered after the alleged representations and agreements, had no real prospect of success on their claims and that there was no need for a trial.

The court was tasked with determining whether the claims of the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs, who were registered after the alleged representations and agreements, had any real prospect of success. Additionally, the court had to decide if the claims based on statutory obligations had any merit. The court also considered whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out due to disclosure of no reasonable cause of action. The court assessed the pleadings to determine if they disclosed a reasonable cause of action or if they were so ambiguous or inconsistent as to warrant being struck out.

The court ruled that the representations and agreements relied upon by the plaintiffs occurred before the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs came into existence. While the mere fact that a plaintiff was formed after a relevant representation was not determinative, the court found that the circumstances in which such entities could recover needed to be carefully pleaded. The court held that the pleadings in this case were not sufficiently detailed to establish a real prospect of success for the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs. Furthermore, the court found that the amended statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was difficult to follow, leading to its striking out. The plaintiffs were granted leave to replead, and the court reserved costs for later determination.

In summary, the court dismissed the claims of the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs, found that the statutory claims lacked merit, and struck out the amended statement of claim. The plaintiffs were allowed to amend their pleadings, and costs were reserved for further hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim filed 22 June 2021 is struck out. The plaintiffs have leave to replead.

2. I will hear the parties on costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Further, any pleading which is difficult to follow or objectively ambiguous, or which creates difficulty for the opposite party insofar as the pleading contains inconsistencies, is liable to be struck out because it can be said to have a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceeding.[2][2]Robert Bax & Associates v Cavenham Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 53.Summary judgment against the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs The representations and agreements upon which the plaintiffs rely are all alleged to have been made before the earliest date on which any of the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs came into existence. The Council argues that that is sufficient to demonstrate that none of those plaintiffs have a real prospect of success on any of the claims and that there is no need for a trial of any claim made by them. The mere fact that a plaintiff comes into existence after a relevant representation is made is not necessarily determinative, see Palmer Street Developments Pty Limited & Anor v J & E Vanjak Pty Ltd & Anor.[3] But the circumstances in which such an entity can recover need to be carefully pleaded – and that has not occurred in this case. [3][2018] QCA 111. It is necessary to set out in some detail the references in the ASOC to the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs. With respect to each of the 3rd to 8th plaintiffs, the pleading is similar. For each it is alleged that:(a)it was registered on a particular date (for the 3rd plaintiff it was 21 May 2018, for the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th plaintiffs it was 15 February 2018 and for the 8th plaintiff it was 26 November 2019);(b)it was the trustee for an identified trust;(c)in its capacity as trustee, it acted as the agent for the owners of the Project, or as the owner of land which formed part of the Project, or, in the case of the 8th plaintiff, replaced another trustee (Ajana Park Pty Ltd); and(d)it is suing in its capacity as trustee. It is alleged that the land which comprised the Project was originally acquired by the 9th and 10th plaintiffs and Ajana Park Pty Ltd. That land has been the subject of subdivision and other changes and, because of sales made over time, the land which is still owned is owned by the 4th to 7th plaintiffs as trustees. It is then pleaded that Rhonda Cowley (who is the wife of John Cowley) is the “sole director and controlling mind” of the 3rd to 7th plaintiffs. John Cowley is alleged to be the “sole director and controlling mind” of Ajana Park Pty Ltd and the 1st, 2nd, 8th, 9th and 10th plaintiffs. It is then pleaded:“15A. In his dealings with the Council pleaded below, Mr Cowley acted:(a) in his capacity as director and controlling mind of Ooralea, Farnscastle, Ajana Developments, Hewbridge, Bakers Creek and Ajana Park[4] (to the extent each of those companies was in existence at the time of the relevant dealing);(b) in his capacity as agent and representative of Mrs Cowley in her capacity as director and controlling mind of Cougar, Bruce Highway, Stockroute, Temples Lane and Cowleys Road[5] (to the extent each of those companies was in existence at the time of the relevant dealing).”[4]The 1st, 2nd, 8th, 9th and 10th plaintiffs and Ajana Park Pty Ltd respectively.[5]The 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th plaintiffs respectively.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Ooralea Developments Pty Ltd & Ors v Mackay Regional Council [2022] QSC 75
PARTIES:	OORALEA DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 144 745 353 (first plaintiff) FARNSCASTLE PTY LTD ACN 010 473 828 (second plaintiff) COUGAR DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 626 283 047 (third plaintiff) BRUCE HIGHWAY FARMING PTY LTD ACN 624 446 028 (fourth plaintiff) STOCKROUTE ROAD FARMING PTY LTD ACN 624 450 077 (fifth plaintiff) TEMPLES LANE FARMING PTY LTD ACN 624 447 856 (sixth plaintiff) COWLEYS ROAD FARMING PTY LTD ACN 624 449 314 (seventh plaintiff) AJANA DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 637 688 174 (eighth plaintiff) HEWBRIDGE PTY LTD ACN 010 647 560 (ninth plaintiff) BAKERS CREEK DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD ACN 118 020 581 (tenth plaintiff) v MACKAY REGIONAL COUNCIL (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS No 12262 of 2020
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2022
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim filed 22 June 2021 is struck out. The plaintiffs have leave to replead. 2. I will hear the parties on costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiffs’ case arises out of discussions held between agents of some of the plaintiffs and the defendant – where the plaintiffs make claims based on unconscionability, negligence, breach of statutory obligations, misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract – where the 3^rd to 8^th plaintiffs were registered on dates after the alleged representations and agreements were made – whether the 3^rd to 8^th plaintiffs have no real prospect of succeeding on all or part of their claim – whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim – whether summary judgment should be given with respect to these plaintiffs pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – SUMMARY DISPOSAL – SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OR RESPONDENT: STAY OR DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS – where the plaintiffs plead claims for breach of a statutory obligation to act in good faith and an unfair, unreasonable and inequitable exercise of power – whether these claims have no real prospect of succeeding – whether there is no need for a trial of these claims – whether summary judgment should be given with respect to these claims pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the defendant seeks to have the whole amended statement of claim struck out – where, alternatively, the defendant seeks to have certain identified paragraphs of the amended statement of claim struck out…