Prider v Bond University Limited

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prider v Bond University Limited [2019] QSC 197

PARTIES:

DYLAN PRIDER

(Plaintiff)

v
BOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED ACN 010 694 121

(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS No 780 of 2019

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2019, ex tempore

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 July 2019

JUDGE:

Bowskill J

ORDER:

Application for determination of separate questions under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 483 is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION OF QUESTIONS AND CONSOLIDATION OF PROCEEDINGS – SEPARATE DECISION OR DETERMINATION – GENERALLY – where the plaintiff claims both contractual relief and relief for misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law – where the defendant applies for an order that two identified questions of law, one relating to the contract claim and another relating to the misleading and deceptive conduct claim, be heard and determined separately from and before the determination of the other questions in the proceeding under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 483 – where there is factual overlap between the proceeding and a separate proceeding in the Federal Court commenced by the plaintiff against the defendant – whether it is just and convenient for the Court to determine the identified questions separately and before any trial

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) r 483

Advanced Traders Pty Ltd v McNab Constructions PtyLtd [2011] QSC 212
CBS Productions Pty Ltd v O’Neill (1985) 1 NSWLR 601
Re Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd  [1999] 1 Qd R 287
Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society (1999) 217 ALR 495

Tepko Pty Ltd v Water Board (2001) 206 CLR 1

COUNSEL:

I Prider (sol) for the plaintiff

M H Hindman QC and S Eggins for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Prider & Co Lawyers for the plaintiff

MinterEllison for the defendant

1. The defendant applies for orders, firstly, under rule 483 of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999, that two identified questions of law be heard and determined separately from and before the determination of the other questions in the proceeding and, secondly, that amendments recently made to the statement of claim be disallowed or alternatively struck out.

2. Dealing firstly with the application for an order for determination of separate questions.

3. It is relevant to note the procedural history.  This proceeding began in this Court in January 2019 with the filing of an originating application by the plaintiff, a student, seeking interlocutory and final injunctive relief against the defendant, Bond University, essentially to require the University to permit and enable the plaintiff to enrol in, attend and participate in a particular course, namely a combined Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws degree.

4. The application for interlocutory relief was heard by Mullins J on 29 January 2019 and dismissed.  On that day, orders were made for the proceeding to continue as if started by claim and for the filing of pleadings. 

5. In due course, a statement of…