Sparkman's Electrical Pty Ltd v Habershon (No 2)

Sparkman’s Electrical Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, commenced legal action against Habershon, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of Queensland, with the matter proceeding on the basis of the plaintiff's claim for breach of contract. The defendants had previously sought to have the case dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to prosecute the case, an application that was initially dismissed. The parties were subsequently instructed to confer with the aim of reaching an agreement on the appropriate further directions to be taken in the case. Despite these efforts, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the matter.

The legal issues that the court was required to determine included whether the matter should remain in the Supreme Court or be remitted to the District Court of Queensland. This decision was influenced by the previous history of the case, including the dismissed application to strike out the proceedings and the inability of the parties to agree on further directions.

The court found that the proceedings should be remitted to the District Court of Queensland, but only on the condition that the plaintiffs file and serve an amended claim and statement of claim by a specified deadline. If the plaintiffs failed to meet this deadline, the proceedings would be struck out. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs incurred as a result of the case. Additionally, the parties were granted liberty to apply if necessary.

The court's orders included a directive that the plaintiffs file and serve an amended claim and statement of claim by 4pm on 11 August 2017. If the plaintiffs failed to do so, the proceedings would be struck out. Upon the filing of the amended claim and statement of claim, the proceedings would be remitted to the District Court of Queensland. The court also ordered that the costs incurred by the parties be borne by each party and granted the parties liberty to apply if necessary.