Panton v Bailey and 2 Ors

[2004] NSWCA 12

CITATION:	Panton v Bailey & 2 Ors [2004] NSWCA 12
HEARING DATE(S):	03/02/04
JUDGMENT DATE:	12 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Sheller JA at 13; Ipp JA at 14
DECISION:	Summons dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Statements of claim - Causes of action - No cause of action disclosed - Content of pleadings - Amendment of pleadings.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Trade Practices Act (1974) (Cth) Supreme Court Rules
CASES CITED:	Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465
PARTIES :	Bernard John Panton v Bruce Leonard Bailey t/as Saccasan Bailey Partners & 2 Ors
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40505/03
COUNSEL:	A: In Person R: R E Dubler
SOLICITORS:	A: John R Quinn & Co R: Phillips Fox

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION:	Supreme Court - Equity Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 5534/01
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Bryson J

CA 40505 of 2003

MEAGHER JA
SHELLER JA
IPP JA

Thursday, 12 February 2004

BERNARD JOHN PANTON v BRUCE LEONARD BAILEY T/as SACCASAN BAILEY PARTNERS & Ors

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: Mr Panton, the claimant, who appeared in person, sued Mr Bailey, his accountant.

2 The great difficulty is to work out on exactly what causes of action. Mr Panton told us he sought to rely on three causes of action: negligence, breaches of fiduciary duty, and breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). These causes of action all allegedly arose out of some wrongful financial documents prepared by Mr Bailey for a Mr Cox, who later became a partner of Mr Panton. Mr Panton never saw these documents, and in no sense relied on them.

3 In reliance on Pt 15 r26 of the Supreme Court Rules Mr Bailey sought to strike out Mr Panton’s Statement of Claim as disclosing no cause of action, and as being embarrassing. Acting-Master Berecry made orders to this effect, but also made orders granting liberty to Mr Panton to replead. Mr Panton appealed against the former and Mr Bailey against the latter. On appeal, Bryson J upheld Mr Bailey’s appeal and dismissed Mr Panton’s. The matter has now come before this Court.

4 The whole point of a pleading is to enable a plaintiff to set out in some coherent order those matters of fact which he intends to prove in order to obtain the orders he seeks. This Mr Panton has signally failed to do. Merely as one example, he has pleaded no facts which would substantiate a claim to having suffered damage. However one reads his Statement of Claim, there is no way one can find a path through the trackless jungle of his effusions.

5 As far as his alleged case in negligence is concerned, he made it clear that he was not relying on a Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd [1964] AC 465 cause of action. This is just as well, as he denied ever seeing the allegedly negligent document, much less relying on it.

6 He addressed…