Piatek v Piatek - [2010] QSC 122

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Piatek v Piatek and Another; Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122

PARTIES:

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff)
v
STAN WALDEMAR PIATEK
(first defendant)
and
MAGDALENA JOANNA PIATEK
(second defendant)

RENATA ANNA PIATEK
(plaintiff)
v
STAN WALDEMAR PIATEK
(first defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS 645 of 2007

BS 3439 of 2005

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

15 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2010

JUDGE:

Daubney J

ORDER:

The applications will be dismissed.

That the defendant to the 2005 proceedings, and the defendants to the 2007 proceedings, will pay the plaintiff’s standard costs of and incidental to each of the applications to strike out the notices to admit facts and the applications for leave to withdraw deemed admissions.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where notices to admit facts were delivered by the plaintiff in July 2009 – where the notices to admit facts were not responded to by the defendant – where the matter was on the Supervised Case List and was the subject of judicial case management at regular reviews – where the matters were set down for trial in January 2010 with the consent of all parties - where the defendants have made an application to strike out the notices to admit facts – where the notices to admit facts in effect called on the defendant to admit each allegation in the pleadings which were denied or not admitted by the defendant – where the form of each notice did so by reference to the specific allegation in the plaintiff’s pleading – whether the notices to admit facts should be struck out as an abuse of process

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant has applied to withdraw the deemed admissions – where the defendants solicitors were owed a considerable amount in respect of outstanding accounts for legal fees – where work on the matter was suspended in light of the outstanding fees prior to the defendant being served with the notices to admit facts – where the defendant was unable to pay outstanding fees and the firm’s retainer remained suspended – where the defendant’s son has a heart condition – where the defendant is defending litigation brought by the plaintiff three different jurisdictions – where an agreement was reached in relation to payment and work was resumed by the defendant’s solicitors in December 2009 – where no evidence was led regarding the responses the defendants would seek to make if the deemed admissions were withdrawn – whether this justified a favourable exercise of the court’s discretion to withdraw the deemed admissions

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (1999) Qld, r 5, r 189

Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175, applied
Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 738, cited

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 Piatek v Piatek

Details

AGLC: Piatek v Piatek; Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122
Case: [2010] QSC 122
Decision Date: 15 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Piatek v Piatek involved the plaintiff, Piatek, pursuing litigation against the defendant, also Piatek, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute arose from the defendant’s failure to respond to notices to admit facts delivered by the plaintiff in July 2009. These notices were part of a larger litigation process that had been judicially managed and was set for trial in January 2010. The defendant subsequently applied to strike out the notices on the grounds of an alleged abuse of process and also sought to withdraw the deemed admissions that resulted from the non-response to the notices.

The court was required to decide whether the notices to admit facts should be struck out due to the defendant's failure to respond, which led to deemed admissions. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the deemed admissions could be withdrawn despite the defendant's failure to provide evidence of the responses they would make if allowed to respond. The court examined the procedural context, including the suspension of legal work due to outstanding legal fees and the personal circumstances of the defendant, such as the health condition of his son and the presence of concurrent litigation in different jurisdictions.

In its reasoning, the court held that the notices to admit facts were not an abuse of process and, therefore, the application to strike them out was dismissed. The court also found that there was no sufficient justification to exercise its discretion favourably to allow the withdrawal of the deemed admissions. The defendant's financial difficulties and personal circumstances, while noted, did not outweigh the procedural rules and the need for the litigation to proceed. The court concluded that the defendant's failure to respond to the notices to admit facts and to provide evidence of the responses they would have made if allowed to do so, warranted the denial of the applications. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs associated with the applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications will be dismissed.

2. That the defendant to the 2005 proceedings, and the defendants to the 2007 proceedings, will pay the plaintiff’s standard costs of and incidental to each of the applications to strike out the notices to admit facts and the applications for leave to withdraw deemed admissions.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Piatek v Piatek and Another; Piatek v Piatek [2010] QSC 122
PARTIES:	RENATA ANNA PIATEK (plaintiff) v STAN WALDEMAR PIATEK (first defendant) and MAGDALENA JOANNA PIATEK (second defendant) RENATA ANNA PIATEK (plaintiff) v STAN WALDEMAR PIATEK (first defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS 645 of 2007 BS 3439 of 2005
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	15 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2010
JUDGE:	Daubney J
ORDER:	The applications will be dismissed. That the defendant to the 2005 proceedings, and the defendants to the 2007 proceedings, will pay the plaintiff’s standard costs of and incidental to each of the applications to strike out the notices to admit facts and the applications for leave to withdraw deemed admissions.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where notices to admit facts were delivered by the plaintiff in July 2009 – where the notices to admit facts were not responded to by the defendant – where the matter was on the Supervised Case List and was the subject of judicial case management at regular reviews – where the matters were set down for trial in January 2010 with the consent of all parties - where the defendants have made an application to strike out the notices to admit facts – where the notices to admit facts in effect called on the defendant to admit each allegation in the pleadings which were denied or not admitted by the defendant – where the form of each notice did so by reference to the specific allegation in the plaintiff’s pleading – whether the notices to admit facts should be struck out as an abuse of process PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – OTHER MATTERS – where the defendant has applied to withdraw the deemed admissions – where the defendants solicitors were owed a considerable amount in respect of outstanding accounts for legal fees – where work on the matter was suspended in light of the outstanding fees prior to the defendant being served with the notices to admit facts – where the defendant was unable to pay outstanding fees and the firm’s retainer remained suspended – where the defendant’s son has a heart condition – where the defendant is defending litigation brought by the plaintiff three different jurisdictions – where an agreement was reached in relation to payment and work was resumed by the defendant’s solicitors in December 2009 – where no evidence was led regarding the responses the defendants would seek to make if the deemed admissions were withdrawn – whether this justified a favourable exercise of the court’s discretion to withdraw the deemed admissions Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (1999) Qld, r 5, r 189 Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] 239 CLR 175, applied Coopers Brewery Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (1992) 26 NSWLR 738, cited