Patten v CPT Manager Limited T/As Centro Flinders - [2014] WADC 158

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: PATTEN -v- CPT MANAGER LIMITED T/AS CENTRO FLINDERS [2014] WADC 158

CORAM: SLEIGHT DCJ

HEARD: 13 OCTOBER 2014

PUBLISHED : 17 NOVEMBER 2014

FILE NO/S: CIV 3486 of 2013

BETWEEN: DEBBIE PATTEN
Plaintiff
AND
CPT MANAGER LIMITED T/AS CENTRO FLINDERS
First defendant
AIRLITE CLEANING PTY LTD
Second defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Appeal against order dismissing application for leave to administer interrogatories - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

District Court Rules 2005
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA)

Result:

Appeal allowed
Leave given to administer interrogatories

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr V Kurup
First defendant              :     No appearance
Second defendant          :     Mr SM Denman

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     CLP Lawyers
First defendant              :     Not applicable
Second defendant          :     Denman Popperwell

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

Dalecoast Pty Ltd v Monisse [1999] WASCA 103
Marich v IHI Engineering Australia Pty Ltd [2013] WADC 19

SLEIGHT DCJ: This is an appeal against a decision of Deputy Registrar Hewitt to refuse leave to the second defendant to administer interrogatories on the plaintiff. The appeal was heard on 13 October 2014 and was allowed by me. I indicated that I would publish reasons at a later date. These are the reasons for my decision.

Background

The plaintiff, Ms Patten, is a disabled person who is wheelchair bound. On 22 March 2011 she went to the disabled toilets in a shopping centre in Yokine, known as the Centro Flinders Shopping Centre. The first defendant is the owner or occupier of the premises. The second defendant, Airlite Cleaning, is a cleaning company employed by the first defendant.
The plaintiff entered the disabled toilets of the shopping centre and alleges that while she was attempting to move from her wheelchair to the toilet seat, she slipped on a wet floor and fell heavily causing injury.
Both defendants deny liability.

Relevant history of proceedings

The plaintiff commenced proceedings by a writ of summons on 28 October 2013. A statement of claim was filed on 23 January 2014 and served on the second defendant's solicitors by letter on 29 January 2014.
The statement of claim poorly pleads the plaintiff's claim against the second defendant. There is no pleading of the basis of the second defendant's alleged duty of care other than to plead that the second defendant provided cleaning services to the first defendant and that the plaintiff's injuries, loss and damage were caused by the negligence of the first defendant. The particulars of negligence are generic in form pleading such things as 'failing to ensure the premises is [sic] reasonably free from hazards'; 'failing to provide adequate warning' and 'failing to take all reasonable and necessary measures to avoid injury to the plaintiff'.
The statement of claim pleads the following description of the incident:
1.On 22 March 2011, the plaintiff visited the first defendant's premises. The plaintiff entered the disabled toilet in the shopping centre in her wheelchair. The floor was wet as she was…

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 Patten v CPT Manager Limited T/As Centro Flinders 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: [2014] WADC 158
Decision Date: 17 NOVEMBER 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Patten v CPT Manager Limited T/As Centro Flinders was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute involved a claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff, Mr Patten, sought to administer interrogatories to the defendant, Centro Flinders, to gather information relevant to the case. The defendant opposed the application, and the Court dismissed Mr Patten's application for leave to administer interrogatories. Mr Patten appealed this decision, arguing that the dismissal was unjust and that he was entitled to the information sought through the interrogatories.

The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether the dismissal of the application for leave to administer interrogatories was appropriate. The Court had to consider whether the plaintiff had a sufficient basis to warrant the administration of interrogatories and whether the defendant's opposition was justified. The Court also had to examine the principles governing the administration of interrogatories and the circumstances in which such applications might be denied.

The Court of Appeal held that the dismissal of the application for leave to administer interrogatories was not appropriate in this case. The Court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the information sought and that the defendant had not demonstrated any valid reason for opposing the application. The Court emphasised that the administration of interrogatories is a powerful tool in civil litigation and should not be denied without good cause. The Court concluded that the trial judge had erred in dismissing the application and that the plaintiff was entitled to the information sought through the interrogatories. The appeal was therefore allowed, and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for further proceedings.

The final orders of the Court included the allowance of the appeal, the setting aside of the order dismissing the application for leave to administer interrogatories, and the direction that the plaintiff be granted leave to administer the interrogatories to the defendant. The Court also ordered that the case be remitted to the trial judge for further consideration in light of the appeal decision.

Orders