Plunkett v Central Norseman Gold Corporation Ltd

[2000] WADC 281

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   PLUNKETT -v- CENTRAL NORSEMAN GOLD CORPORATION LTD [2000] WADC 281

CORAM:   YEATS DCJ

HEARD:   27 OCTOBER 2000

DELIVERED          :   3 NOVEMBER 2000

FILE NO/S:   CIV 1717 of 1994

BETWEEN:   SHANE PLUNKETT

Plaintiff

AND

CENTRAL NORSEMAN GOLD CORPORATION LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Appeal from Registrar - Practice and procedure - Chronologies - Whether a chronology is inconsistent with the pleadings is a matter for the trial Judge - District Court Practice Directions O 5 r 8

Legislation:

District Court Practice Directions

Result:

Appeal allowed
The order of the Deputy Registrar uplifting the defendant's chronology is set aside

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr J C Prast

Defendant:     Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Anthony Torre & Monaco

Defendant:     Greenland Brooksby

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

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

1. YEATS DCJ:  The defendant appeals from a decision of the Deputy Registrar who ordered the defendant's chronology to be uplifted.  The chronology had been filed pursuant to District Court Practice Directions O 5 r 8(1) and r 8(2):

   "(1)When a pre‑trial conference does not result in compromise the Registrar shall adjourn the action to a listing conference and make orders or directions which may include the following:

   (a)Within 14 days the plaintiff shall file and serve

   (i)a chronology of relevant events …

   (2)Within 14 days of service of such documents the defendant shall file and serve:

   (i)The defendant's chronology of relevant events ...

   (ii)Chronologies and statements of issues filed and served pursuant to sub‑rule (1) should be consistent with the pleadings of the party providing the same."

2. In this case Deputy Registrar Harman ordered that the defendant's chronology be uplifted because it was not consistent with the defendant's pleading.  The defendant has appealed from that decision of the Deputy Registrar.

Appeal not competent

1. This matter came on for hearing in a special appointment set down before me.  I heard the defendant's submissions and those of the plaintiff on the merits.  Upon reflection it does not seem to me that the action of the Deputy Registrar in ordering the chronology to be uplifted and the appeal are competent.

2. The Practice Directions certainly are effective in setting in place procedures that facilitate orderly and expeditious trials of action in the District Court.  The Practice Directions requiring chronologies of relevant events and concise statements of the issues of fact and law and an index of reports of any expert witnesses are included in orders that "may" be made by the Registrar to facilitate the trial of a matter.  A failure to comply at all or to comply in a timely manner could lead to delay in the listing of the trial and could on an appropriate occasion lead to an adjournment of a trial.  But the content of these documents, that is chronologies, concise statements of issues of fact and law and the index of the expert reports are matters that are for counsel preparing for trial to put in place for the assistance of the trial Judge.

3. It is true that chronologies should be consistent with the pleadings of the party providing the same but, that matter, if it is contended that a chronology is inconsistent, is a matter that should be raised with the trial Judge and not with the Deputy Registrar.  It is certainly not a matter that should be taken on appeal as has happened in this case.

4. A failure to comply with a practice direction and a failure by a party to submit a chronology which is consistent with the pleadings of that party could affect that party's case at trial and could affect the attitude of the trial Judge.  It is not a matter that should be litigated as if it were a pleading or a document that has any effect in the trial.  A chronology serves to document a sequence of events relied upon by a party in its case.  It can prove to be very valuable to the trial Judge.  If it fails to comply with O 5 r 8(2) and is inconsistent with the pleadings of the party providing the same, that is a matter that should be raised with the trial Judge.

5. For these reasons without considering the merits of this particular appeal it is necessary that the appeal be allowed so that the defendant's chronology can be placed before the trial Judge.  If there are inconsistencies that is a matter for the plaintiff to raise at trial.

6. For these reasons the appeal is allowed.  The order of the Deputy Registrar uplifting the defendant's chronology is set aside.