Spaulding v Adams - [2005] TASSC 22

[2005] TASSC 22

CITATION: Spaulding v Adams [2005] TASSC 22

PARTIES:  SPAULDING, Michael John
  v
  ADAMS, Colin Bertram and
  PAGE SEAGER (a firm)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  671/2003
DELIVERED ON:  15 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  4 April 2005
DECISION OF:  Master Holt

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Tasmania – Practice under the Rules of Court – Pleadings – Striking out.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas)
Aust Dig Procedure [272]
Equity – Remedies and procedure – Pleading.
Aust Dig Equity [57]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  In person
             Defendants:  P L Jackson
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  In person
             Defendants:  Jackson and Tremayne

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 22
Number of paragraphs: 14

Serial No 22/2005
File No 671/2003

MICHAEL JOHN SPAULDING v COLIN BERTRAM ADAMS
and PAGE SEAGER (a firm)

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER S J HOLT
15 April 2005

By his writ filed 19 December 2003 the plaintiff sues the first defendant, a legal practitioner, and the second defendant, his firm. The defendants have applied for an order that the statement of claim be struck out and the action dismissed on two grounds. The first ground is that “the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action”. By consent an order was made that the first ground be separately heard and determined.

Supreme Court Rules 2000, r259, empowers the court to strike out a pleading which “does not disclose a reasonable cause of action”. The phrase “cause of action” however, is not defined by the rules. In Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474, Wheeler J said at p484:

“This Court recently had occasion to consider the question of what constituted a ‘cause of action’ for limitation purposes, in order to determine whether an action for a declaration could be considered to be a ‘cause of action’ in Judamia v Western Australia (unreported, Supreme Court, WA, Full Court, Library No 960114, 1 March 1996). The court found that in that context, difficulty had been occasioned by a confusion between the old forms of action and the concept of a ‘cause of action’. In order to avoid confusion so far as possible, I propose in what follows to use the expression ‘cause of action’ in order to describe merely a factual situation which will entitle a person to approach the court for relief, and ‘form of action’ to refer to the old categories of action, several of which might be capable of arising out of one factual situation.”

In my view the meaning of the phrase “cause of action” in the context of limitation legislation provides guidance as to the meaning that should be assigned to the phrase in the context of pleading. The essential requirements for a pleading are contained in r227 which is as follows:

“(1) A pleading is to –
(a) be as brief as the nature of the case allows; and
(b)contain only a statement of all the material facts in summary form on which the party relies but not the evidence…

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 Spaulding v Adams

Details

AGLC: Spaulding v Adams [2005] TASSC 22
Case: [2005] TASSC 22
Decision Date: 15 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spaulding v Adams involved a dispute in Tasmania concerning the proper procedure under the Rules of Court, specifically in relation to pleadings and the power to strike out. The plaintiff, Spaulding, sought to enforce a contract against the defendant, Adams. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff's statement of claim did not comply with the Rules of Court and was therefore invalid.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficient under the Rules of Court to warrant a response from the defendant or if it was so deficient that it warranted being struck out. The court had to determine whether the deficiencies in the plaintiff's statement of claim were such that they rendered the pleading invalid and, if so, whether this warranted the entire claim being dismissed.

The court held that the Rules of Court provide the power to strike out pleadings that do not comply with the necessary legal standards. In this instance, the court found that the plaintiff's statement of claim was indeed deficient and did not meet the required standards. However, the court determined that the deficiencies did not go to the heart of the claim and that it was not in the interests of justice to strike out the entire claim. Instead, the court ordered that the plaintiff's statement of claim be amended to address the deficiencies identified, and the defendant was given a period within which to respond to the amended pleadings. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that pleadings comply with the Rules of Court to avoid unnecessary delays and to ensure that cases are decided on their merits.

Orders