Queensland Rail v Amaca - [2011] QSC 289

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Queensland Rail v Amaca and Ors [2011] QSC 289

PARTIES:

QUEENSLAND RAIL
(Plaintiff)

v

AMACA PTY LTD ACN 000 035 512
(First Defendant)

and

AMABA PTY LTD ACN 000 387 342
(Second Defendant)

and

WALLABY GRIP LIMITED
(Third Defendant)

and

WALLABY GRIP (B.A.E.) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 008 453 325
(Fourth Defendant)

and

SELTSAM PTY LIMITED ACN 000 003 734
(Fifth Defendant)

and

CRS LIMITED ACN 000 001 276
(Sixth Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS2162 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

5 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 September 2011

JUDGE:

Boddice J

ORDER:

1. The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.

2. The defendants’ applications are allowed.

3. The defendants are granted leave to file and serve the third further amended defences.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the third and fourth defendants plead counterclaims and claims for equitable set-off - where the plaintiff makes application pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for summary judgment on those counterclaims – whether there are no real prospects of succeeding on all or part of the claims – whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff makes application pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for the counterclaims and equitable set-offs to be struck out – whether a set-off or counterclaim can be pleaded in a claim for statutory indemnity – whether there is no reasonable cause of action – whether those claims have a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceedings

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – where the defendants make application for leave to deliver further amended defences – where the plaintiff has been on notice of the equitable set-off claims since 2008 – where no steps were taken to strike it out – whether it is appropriate to grant the defendants leave to bring such claims at a late stage in the proceeding

Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)

Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council (2006) 226 CLR 256

Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213

Coldham-Fussell v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] QCA 45

James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 78

Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232

Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles [2007] QSC 59

Spencer…

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 Queensland Rail v Amaca

Details

AGLC: Queensland Rail v Amaca [2011] QSC 289
Case: [2011] QSC 289
Decision Date: 5 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Queensland Rail v Amaca involved the third and fourth defendants who pleaded counterclaims and claims for equitable set-off against the plaintiff, Queensland Rail. The dispute arose in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was required to determine various procedural issues related to these counterclaims and set-offs.

The court first considered whether the plaintiff's application for summary judgment on the counterclaims was appropriate under rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). The court assessed whether there were no real prospects of the defendants succeeding on all or part of their claims and whether a trial was necessary. Additionally, the court examined whether the defendants' claims for set-off could be pleaded in a claim for statutory indemnity and whether these claims had a tendency to prejudice or delay the proceedings. Furthermore, the court reviewed the defendants' application for leave to deliver further amended defences, considering whether it was appropriate to grant such leave at a late stage in the proceedings, given that the plaintiff had been aware of the equitable set-off claims since 2008.

The court found that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was not appropriate, and thus dismissed it. The court allowed the defendants' applications, including granting leave for the defendants to file and serve their third further amended defences. The court ruled that it was appropriate to permit the defendants to bring their set-off claims at that stage, considering the plaintiff's prolonged awareness of these claims.

The court's final orders were that the plaintiff's application for summary judgment was dismissed, the defendants' applications were allowed, and the defendants were granted leave to file and serve their third further amended defences.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s application is dismissed.

2. The defendants’ applications are allowed.

3. The defendants are granted leave to file and serve the third further amended defences.

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:	Queensland Rail v Amaca and Ors [2011] QSC 289
PARTIES:	QUEENSLAND RAIL (Plaintiff) v AMACA PTY LTD ACN 000 035 512 (First Defendant) and AMABA PTY LTD ACN 000 387 342 (Second Defendant) and WALLABY GRIP LIMITED (Third Defendant) and WALLABY GRIP (B.A.E.) PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) ACN 008 453 325 (Fourth Defendant) and SELTSAM PTY LIMITED ACN 000 003 734 (Fifth Defendant) and CRS LIMITED ACN 000 001 276 (Sixth Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS2162 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	5 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 September 2011
JUDGE:	Boddice J
ORDER:	1. The plaintiff’s application is dismissed. 2. The defendants’ applications are allowed. 3. The defendants are granted leave to file and serve the third further amended defences.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where the third and fourth defendants plead counterclaims and claims for equitable set-off - where the plaintiff makes application pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for summary judgment on those counterclaims – whether there are no real prospects of succeeding on all or part of the claims – whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – OTHER MATTERS – where the plaintiff makes application pursuant to r 171 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) for the counterclaims and equitable set-offs to be struck out – whether a set-off or counterclaim can be pleaded in a claim for statutory indemnity – whether there is no reasonable cause of action – whether those claims have a tendency to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the proceedings PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM – where the defendants make application for leave to deliver further amended defences – where the plaintiff has been on notice of the equitable set-off claims since 2008 – where no steps were taken to strike it out – whether it is appropriate to grant the defendants leave to bring such claims at a late stage in the proceeding Law Reform Act 1995 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales; Batistatos v Newcastle City Council (2006) 226 CLR 256 Brambles Constructions Pty Ltd v Helmers (1966) 114 CLR 213 Coldham-Fussell v Commissioner of Taxation [2011] QCA 45 James Hardie & Co Pty Ltd v Seltsam Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 78 Neumann Contractors Pty Ltd v Traspunt No 5 Pty Ltd [2010] QCA 119 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] 2 Qd R 232 Royalene Pty Ltd v Registrar of Titles [2007] QSC 59 Spencer…