Legal Research
Cases
Petersen v Nolan

Petersen v Nolan

Case [2019] QSC 216 9 September 2019

Standing

Striking Out

Discovery & Disclosure

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216

PARTIES:

PATRICIA PETERSEN

(Respondent/Plaintiff)
v

RACHEL GENEVIEVE NOLAN
(Applicant/Defendant)

FILE NO:

BS No 612 of 2018

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 September 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 May 2019

JUDGE:

Martin J

ORDERS:

1.    The Seventh Amended Statement of Claim is struck out.

2.    I give judgment for the defendant on the claim.

3.    The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the plaintiff ran against the defendant in a State election – where the defendant was the incumbent – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the local council to seize the plaintiff’s signs and fine the plaintiff – where the plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for misfeasance in public office and/or negligence – where the defendant seeks an order striking out the statement of claim – where there is no evidence which supports in any way the plaintiff’s allegation – whether the plaintiff’s pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – where the plaintiff ran against the defendant in a State election – where the defendant was the incumbent – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the local council to seize the plaintiff’s signs and fine the plaintiff – where the plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for misfeasance in public office and/or negligence – where the defendant seeks an order for judgment against the plaintiff – where there is no evidence which supports in any way the plaintiff’s allegation – whether the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on all of her claim and there is no need for a trial of the claim

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 171, r 293

Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] AC 1228, cited

Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Day (2008) 236 CLR 163, cited

Davis v Commonwealth (1986) 68 ALR 18, cited

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited

Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307, cited

Morris v Redland City Council & Anor [2015] QSC 135, followed

Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor [2007] QSC 059, cited

Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329, cited

The Beach Club Port Douglas P/L v Page [2006] 1 Qd R 307, cited

COUNSEL:

The respondent/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf

JB Rolls for the applicant/defendant

SOLICITORS:

The respondent/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf

Bold Lawyers for the applicant/defendant

On 24 March 2012 an election was held for the Legislative Assembly for the State of Queensland. Ms Petersen (the respondent to this application and…

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 Petersen v Nolan

Details

AGLC: Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216
Case: [2019] QSC 216
Decision Date: 9 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Petersen v Nolan involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Ms Petersen, and the defendant, Mr Nolan, who ran against each other in a State election where Mr Nolan was the incumbent. Ms Petersen alleges that Mr Nolan caused the local council to seize her signs and fine her, and she seeks damages against him for misfeasance in public office and/or negligence. Mr Nolan, in response, seeks an order striking out the statement of claim, arguing that it does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, and later seeks a default judgment against Ms Petersen, arguing that there is no real prospect of her succeeding on her claims. The case was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the validity of the plaintiff's pleadings and whether the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim or for default judgment should be granted. The court had to determine whether Ms Petersen's pleadings disclosed any reasonable cause of action against Mr Nolan and whether she had any real prospect of succeeding on her claims. The court was required to examine the evidence provided by Ms Petersen and assess whether it supported her allegations of misfeasance in public office or negligence by Mr Nolan.

The court found that there was no evidence to support Ms Petersen's allegations in any way. It concluded that her claims were devoid of any viable cause of action and that she had no real prospect of succeeding on her claims. The court held that the Seventh Amended Statement of Claim did not disclose any reasonable cause of action, and there was no need for a trial. The court struck out the statement of claim, granted judgment in favour of Mr Nolan, and ordered Ms Petersen to pay Mr Nolan's costs on the indemnity basis.

The final orders of the court are that the Seventh Amended Statement of Claim is struck out, judgment is given for the defendant on the claim, and the plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs on the indemnity basis. The court emphasised that Ms Petersen's claims were doomed to fail and should never have been brought, highlighting the importance of ensuring that claims have a viable legal basis before proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Seventh Amended Statement of Claim is struck out.

2. I give judgment for the defendant on the claim.

3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis.

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

In the absence of any viable cause of action and in the absence of any evidence which suggests that some other cause of action might exist, it must follow that Ms Petersen has no real prospect of succeeding on all or a part of her claim and that there is no need for a trial. Conclusion The Seventh Amended Statement of Claim is struck out. I give judgment for the defendant on the claim. This was a case which was doomed to fail. Notwithstanding the many attempts to draw a claim that was recognised at law, this had such a remote prospect of success that it should never have been brought.[12] I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis.[12] Morris v Redland City Council & Anor [2015] QSC 135 at [76].

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216

Most Recent Citation

Petersen v Nolan [2020] QCA 56

Cases Citing This Decision

Sawtell v State of Queensland [2025] QDC 134
Citation 1 (Para 49)

…rinciples, cautioning against using the power sparingly, unless in the most clear, plain and obvious case, as set out by Martin J in Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216 at [7] and by Cooper J in Sentinel Income Pty Ltd v Santrev Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] QSC 165.…
Nyx v State of Queensland [2025] QSC 207
Citation 2 (Para 8)

…07] QSC 59 at [6] per Mackenzie J. [14]See Williams & Humbert Limited v W & H Trade Marks [1986] 1 AC 386 at 435 to 436 per Lord Templeman. [15][2019] QSC 216. “[7] The volumes of reports are replete with cautions against using the power to strike out. The guiding principles are: (a)The discretion should only be…
Law Society Northern Territory v Petersen [2025] NTSC 34
Citation 3 (Para 22)

…Q Board then obtained various media articles referring to Petersen and a copy of the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland in Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216 (‘ Nolan decision’).[52]…
Petersen v Nolan [2020] QCA 56
Citation 4 (Para 2)

…Dr Petersen pay Ms Nolan’s costs on the indemnity basis. These orders were made by the learned primary judge on 9 September 2019: Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216 (the reasons). The nature of the proceeding…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Giffin v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] QSC 111
Citation 1 (Para 28)

…claim discloses no reasonable cause or causes of action.” [10] [2018] QSC 12. [11] Adopted by Atkinson J in Giffin v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] QSC 111.…
Young v Crime and Corruption Commission [2018] QSC 12
Citation 2 (Para 28)

…upon the assertions which are contained in the current pleading. The statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause or causes of action.” [10] [2018] QSC 12. [11] Adopted by Atkinson J in Giffin v Telstra Corporation Limited [2018] QSC 111.…
Morris v Redland City Council [2015] QSC 135
Citation 3 (Para 34)

…never have been brought.[12] I order that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis. [12] Morris v Redland City Council & Anor [2015] QSC 135 at [76].…
Commissioner of Taxation v Day [2008] HCA 53
Citation 4 (Para 20)

…nt) and the facts of this case. In any event, this application is to be decided on what the law is, not what it might become. [9] (2008) 236 CLR 163; [2008] HCA 53.…
Northern Territory v Mengel [1995] HCA 65
Citation 5 (Para 14)

…e duties of that public office, which (e) causes loss or harm.[6] [5] Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329 at [42]. [6] See Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307.…
Davis v Commonwealth [1986] HCA 66
Citation 6 (Para 7)

…lved in ways beyond present recognition.[4] [1] Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor [2007] QSC 059 at [6]. [2] Davis v Commonwealth (1986) 68 ALR 18 at 23. [3] General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130. [4] The Beach Club Port Douglas P/L v Page [2006] 1 Qd R…
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69
Citation 7 (Para 7)

…or [2007] QSC 059 at [6]. [2] Davis v Commonwealth (1986) 68 ALR 18 at 23. [3] General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130. [4] The Beach Club Port Douglas P/L v Page [2006] 1 Qd R 307 at [23].…
Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles [2007] QSC 059
Citation 8 (Para 7)

…indeterminable future time when it may have evolved in ways beyond present recognition.[4] [1] Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor [2007] QSC 059 at [6]. [2] Davis v Commonwealth (1986) 68 ALR 18 at 23. [3] General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130. [4] Th…
[1989] AC 1228 [1989] AC 1228
Citation 9 (Para 16)

…e or purported exercise by the public officer of some power or authority with which he is clothed by virtue of the office he holds …” [8] [1989] AC 1228 at 1240.…

Legislation Cited

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) 171
1 mention

CITATION:	Petersen v Nolan [2019] QSC 216
PARTIES:	PATRICIA PETERSEN (Respondent/Plaintiff) v RACHEL GENEVIEVE NOLAN (Applicant/Defendant)
FILE NO:	BS No 612 of 2018
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 September 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 May 2019
JUDGE:	Martin J
ORDERS:	1. The Seventh Amended Statement of Claim is struck out. 2. I give judgment for the defendant on the claim. 3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on the indemnity basis.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PLEADINGS – STRIKING OUT – DISCLOSING NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION OR DEFENCE – where the plaintiff ran against the defendant in a State election – where the defendant was the incumbent – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the local council to seize the plaintiff’s signs and fine the plaintiff – where the plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for misfeasance in public office and/or negligence – where the defendant seeks an order striking out the statement of claim – where there is no evidence which supports in any way the plaintiff’s allegation – whether the plaintiff’s pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – ENDING PROCEEDINGS EARLY – DEFAULT JUDGMENT – where the plaintiff ran against the defendant in a State election – where the defendant was the incumbent – where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant caused the local council to seize the plaintiff’s signs and fine the plaintiff – where the plaintiff seeks damages against the defendant for misfeasance in public office and/or negligence – where the defendant seeks an order for judgment against the plaintiff – where there is no evidence which supports in any way the plaintiff’s allegation – whether the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on all of her claim and there is no need for a trial of the claim Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, r 171, r 293 Calveley v Chief Constable of Merseyside [1989] AC 1228, cited Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia v Day (2008) 236 CLR 163, cited Davis v Commonwealth (1986) 68 ALR 18, cited General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, cited Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 185 CLR 307, cited Morris v Redland City Council & Anor [2015] QSC 135, followed Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles & Anor [2007] QSC 059, cited Sanders v Snell (1998) 196 CLR 329, cited The Beach Club Port Douglas P/L v Page [2006] 1 Qd R 307, cited
COUNSEL:	The respondent/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf JB Rolls for the applicant/defendant
SOLICITORS:	The respondent/plaintiff appeared on her own behalf Bold Lawyers for the applicant/defendant