Roddan v Walker - [2000] WASC 25

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: RODDAN -v- WALKER & ANOR [2000] WASC 25

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 15 DECEMBER 1999

DELIVERED : 11 FEBRUARY 2000

FILE NO/S: CIV 1869 of 1999

BETWEEN: LINDSAY GORDON RODDAN
Plaintiff
AND
MICHAEL JOHN WALKER
First Defendant
DOMINIC ANTHONY STALTARI
Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for leave to file a substituted statement of claim - Turns on its own facts

Legislation:

Limitation Act 1935, s 38, s 39

Result:

Leave refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     In person
First Defendant             :     Mr T Darbyshire
Second Defendant         :     Mr T Darbyshire

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     In person
First Defendant             :     Kott Gunning
Second Defendant         :     Kott Gunning

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

Cabassi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130

Case(s) also cited:

Commonwealth Dairy Produce Equalisation Community Ltd v McCabe (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 397
Commonwealth Life Assurance Society Limited v Brain (1935) 53 CLR 343
Hooker Corp Limited v Commonwealth (1996) 65 ACTR 32
Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wiese (1990) 4 WAR 263
Raleigh v Goschen [1898] 1 Ch 73
Water Authority of Western Australia v AIL Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) (1992) 10 WAR 233

MASTER SANDERSON: These are pleading summonses. Each is in identical terms. There have been a number of appearances and various orders made on those appearances. Before dealing with this particular application I should say something of the history of the action to date.
The action was commenced by a writ dated 6 August 1999. A statement of claim was endorsed on the writ. On 2 September 1999 the defendants each filed a chamber summons seeking to strike out the statement of claim. On 25 October 1999 the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claim. On 26 October 1999 I struck out the amended statement of claim and gave the plaintiff 21 days in which to file and serve a further amended statement of claim. The matter came back on for hearing on 23 November 1999 and no further amended statement of claim had been filed. The time for filing and serving the substituted statement of claim was extended by 14 days. On 9 December 1999 the plaintiff lodged a minute of proposed substituted statement of claim. The defendants object to the statement of claim in its present form. They also say that the statement of claim discloses no cause of action and that the action against both defendants should be dismissed.
The minute of proposed substituted statement of claim (which for convenience sake I will refer to as "the minute") runs to 112 paragraphs and 31 pages. So far as I can ascertain from reading the document it seeks to plead the following causes of action:
1.False imprisonment
2.Trespass to person
3.Intimidation
4.Assault and Battery
5.Malicious prosecution
6.Malicious falsehood
7.Trespass to goods
8.Conspiracy to injure by unlawful means
9.Negligence
10.Misfeasance in public office
In par 25, par 42, par 43 and par 54 of the minute the plaintiff claims for assault and…

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 Roddan v Walker

Details

AGLC: Roddan v Walker [2000] WASC 25
Case: [2000] WASC 25
Decision Date: 11 FEBRUARY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Roddan v Walker, the applicant sought leave to file a substituted statement of claim, which was opposed by the respondent. The dispute involved the applicant's attempt to amend their initial statement of claim, which had been struck out previously, to rectify what they considered to be significant deficiencies in the original pleading. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted permission to file a substituted statement of claim. This required the court to balance the applicant's right to amend their pleadings against the principles of finality and efficiency in litigation. Additionally, the court had to consider the merits of the proposed substituted statement of claim and whether it demonstrated a valid cause of action.

The court held that an application for leave to file a substituted statement of claim must be assessed on its own facts. It emphasised the importance of ensuring that the proposed amendment would not unduly prejudice the respondent or result in an unjust prolongation of the proceedings. After examining the circumstances, the court found that the proposed substituted statement of claim did not demonstrate a valid cause of action and was unlikely to succeed. Consequently, the application for leave to file a substituted statement of claim was dismissed.

The court did not make any orders regarding the filing of a substituted statement of claim, as the application was dismissed. The case underscores the principle that applications for amendments to pleadings must be carefully considered, with a focus on the potential for prejudice and the overall efficiency of the judicial process.

Orders