Robertson v Dogz Online

Robertson, the plaintiff, sought leave to file an amended statement of claim against Dogz Online, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, previously a self-represented litigant, was now represented by counsel and sought leave to file a further amended statement of claim after previous versions had been struck out. The plaintiff also sought leave to file interrogatories for the examination of the second defendant. Dogz Online opposed the plaintiff's applications and sought to have the proceedings stayed permanently as an abuse of process or, in the alternative, that the plaintiff provide a security for costs.

The court considered whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file the latest version of the statement of claim, whether the statement of claim needed to be "marked up", and whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file and serve interrogatories. The court also considered whether the proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of process or until a security for costs was provided.

The court held that the plaintiff should be granted leave to file an amended claim and the proposed statement of claim, provided certain requirements were met. The court held that the plaintiff was not required to "mark up" the amendments and that the plaintiff's application for leave to file and serve interrogatories should be refused. The court also held that the defendants' applications for judgment in their favour and for the proceedings to be stayed should be refused.

The plaintiff is given leave to file an amended claim and the proposed statement of claim, subject to certain conditions being met. The plaintiff is also given leave to dispense with the requirement to "mark up" the amendments. The plaintiff's application for leave to file and serve interrogatories is refused. The defendants' applications for judgment in their favour and for the proceedings to be stayed are refused.