Slack v HRL Limited - [2012] QSC 387

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Slack & Anor v HRL Limited & Ors [2012] QSC 387

PARTIES:

DOUGLAS SLACK and DAWN EDITH SLACK
(Plaintiffs)
v
ACIRL PTY LTD ACN 000 513 888
(First Defendant)

And

AUSTRALIAN LABORATORY SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 009 136 029

(Second Defendant)

And

HRL LIMITED ACN 061 930 756

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

S196 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2012

JUDGE:

McMeekin J

ORDERS:

1.    Paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim are struck out;

2.    The plaintiffs have leave to deliver a Further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 4pm on 21 December 2012;

3.    The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to be brought on on four days notice in writing by any party to the others;

4.    That the parties make any submissions on costs that they might be advised on or before 4pm on 12 December 2012 and in the event that no submissions are received that the parties’ costs of and incidental to the application be their costs in the cause.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE –
QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT

– SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where application for summary judgment or alternatively striking out parts of pleading – whether cause of action known to law disclosed

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 150, 154, 171, 214, 293

Blake v Lanyon (1795) 6 TR 221

British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] 1 Ch 556

Bruce J Small No 1 Pty Ltd & Anor v Minister For Natural Resources & Anor [1999] QSC 038

Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v The Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees' Association of Western Australia (1987) 13 FCR 413

De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 63 LT 514

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227

Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691

Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473

Independent Oil Industries Ltd v The Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 394

Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 69 ALJR 527

Premier Building and Consulting Pty Ltd (recs apptd) v Spotless Group LtdNo 12 [2007] VSC 377

Shiphard v Motor Accident Commission (1997) 70 SASR 240

Short v City Bank (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 186

Trade Practices Commission v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 109

COUNSEL:

A Arnold for the Plaintiff

S Robertson for the Third Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Purcell & Associates for the Plaintiff

Maddocks for the Third Defendant

McMEEKIN J:

The third defendant applies for summary judgment pursuant to r 293 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR) or alternatively that parts of the plaintiffs’ pleading be struck out pursuant to r 171(1)(a) UCPR.

The plaintiffs’ cause of action is based on an alleged intentional interference by the third defendant with their contractual relations with the first defendant. The plaintiffs seek that a mandatory injunction…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Slack v HRL Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] QSC 387
Decision Date: 5 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings before the Supreme Court of Queensland involved Slack, the plaintiff, and HRL Limited, the defendant. Slack sought summary judgment or, in the alternative, for certain parts of the defendant’s pleadings to be struck out. The central dispute centred around allegations of breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court, which exercised its jurisdiction to manage the case procedurally.

The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's amended statement of claim disclosed a cause of action known to law. Specifically, the court examined whether the claims in paragraphs 18, 21, and 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim were legally valid. The defendant argued that these paragraphs failed to establish a proper cause of action and were therefore not permissible. The court had to balance the need for clarity in the pleadings against the principles of fairness and procedural justice.

In delivering its judgment, the court found that paragraphs 18, 21, and 22 did not adequately disclose a cause of action. Consequently, these parts of the pleadings were struck out. The plaintiff was granted leave to deliver a further amended statement of claim by a specified deadline. The application was adjourned to allow for further proceedings. The court also ordered that any submissions on costs be made by a certain date, and in the absence of such submissions, the parties' costs of and incidental to the application would be their costs in the cause.

The final orders of the court included the striking out of specified paragraphs of the Amended Statement of Claim, granting leave to the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim by a specified date, and setting a date for the application to be brought on for further hearing. The court also made orders regarding the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim are struck out;

2. The plaintiffs have leave to deliver a Further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 4pm on 21 December 2012;

3. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to be brought on on four days notice in writing by any party to the others;

4. That the parties make any submissions on costs that they might be advised on or before 4pm on 12 December 2012 and in the event that no submissions are received that the parties’ costs of and incidental to the application be their costs in the cause.

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:	Slack & Anor v HRL Limited & Ors [2012] QSC 387
PARTIES:	DOUGLAS SLACK and DAWN EDITH SLACK (Plaintiffs) v ACIRL PTY LTD ACN 000 513 888 (First Defendant) And AUSTRALIAN LABORATORY SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 009 136 029 (Second Defendant) And HRL LIMITED ACN 061 930 756 (Third Defendant)
FILE NO/S:	S196 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	5 December 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	23 November 2012
JUDGE:	McMeekin J
ORDERS:	1. Paragraphs 18, 21 and 22 of the Amended Statement of Claim are struck out; 2. The plaintiffs have leave to deliver a Further Amended Statement of Claim on or before 4pm on 21 December 2012; 3. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed to be brought on on four days notice in writing by any party to the others; 4. That the parties make any submissions on costs that they might be advised on or before 4pm on 12 December 2012 and in the event that no submissions are received that the parties’ costs of and incidental to the application be their costs in the cause.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where application for summary judgment or alternatively striking out parts of pleading – whether cause of action known to law disclosed Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rr 150, 154, 171, 214, 293 Blake v Lanyon (1795) 6 TR 221 British Motor Trade Association v Salvadori [1949] 1 Ch 556 Bruce J Small No 1 Pty Ltd & Anor v Minister For Natural Resources & Anor [1999] QSC 038 Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v The Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees' Association of Western Australia (1987) 13 FCR 413 De Francesco v Barnum (1890) 63 LT 514 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Salcedo [2005] QCA 227 Emerald Construction Co Ltd v Lowthian [1966] 1 WLR 691 Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou (1999) 47 NSWLR 473 Independent Oil Industries Ltd v The Shell Co of Australia Ltd (1937) 37 SR (NSW) 394 Northern Territory v Mengel (1995) 69 ALJR 527 Premier Building and Consulting Pty Ltd (recs apptd) v Spotless Group LtdNo 12 [2007] VSC 377 Shiphard v Motor Accident Commission (1997) 70 SASR 240 Short v City Bank (1912) 12 SR (NSW) 186 Trade Practices Commission v David Jones (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 7 FCR 109
COUNSEL:	A Arnold for the Plaintiff S Robertson for the Third Defendant
SOLICITORS:	Purcell & Associates for the Plaintiff Maddocks for the Third Defendant