Legal Research
Cases
Spaulding v Law Society of Tasmania

Spaulding v Law Society of Tasmania

Case [2004] TASSC 1 21 January 2004

Jurisdiction

Amendment of Pleadings

Reasonable Cause of Action

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

[2004] TASSC 1

CITATION: Spaulding v Law Society of Tasmania [2004] TASSC 1

PARTIES:  SPAULDING, Michael John
  v
  LAW SOCIETY OF TASMANIA

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  359/2003
DELIVERED ON:  21 January 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  5 December 2003
DECISION OF:  Master Holt

CATCHWORDS:

Procedure – Tasmania – Practice under Rules of Court – Amendments – Amendment of statement of claim – Whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – Whether pleading embarrassing.
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r227, r258, r259 and r427.
Aust Dig Procedure [276]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Plaintiff:  In person
             Defendant:  Mr M O’Farrell
Solicitors:
             Plaintiff:  In person
             Defendant:  Simmons Wolfhagen

Judgment Number: [2004] TASSC 1
Number of Paragraphs: 17

Serial No 1/2004
File No 359/2003

SPAULDING v LAW SOCIETY OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR DECISION MASTER HOLT

21 January 2004

The plaintiff, Mr Spaulding, has sued the Law Society of Tasmania (“the Law Society”) for damages for financial loss arising out of the handling by the Law Society of a complaint of professional misconduct which Mr Spaulding made against a firm of legal practitioners and a member of that firm on about 11 September 1992. The writ was endorsed with a statement of claim. That statement of claim was amended and on 1 September 2003 the amended statement of claim was struck out with Mr Spaulding having liberty to file and serve a further statement of claim. A further statement of claim was filed and in respect of that document on 6 October 2003 the following orders were made by consent:

“1Unless amended following an application filed and served by 5 pm on Tuesday, 21 October 2003, the statement of claim is struck out.
2Upon the filing of an affidavit verifying that as at 5 pm on Tuesday, 21 October 2003, the plaintiff has not filed and served an application for leave to amend the statement of claim judgment is to be entered for the defendant against the plaintiff with costs including any reserved costs.”

The time for making the amendment application was extended and on 10 November 2003 a document entitled “Amended Statement of Claim” was filed and treated by the parties as an application to amend. It is with this application that the Court is now concerned. The amendment was opposed on grounds that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed and that the proposed pleading was embarrassing.

Mr Spaulding is self-represented. The proposed pleading is Mr Spaulding’s fourth attempt at pleading his claim. Understandably Mr Spaulding has gone to considerable effort to fully set out the grounds of his action. The proposed statement of claim runs to 22 pages and comprises 152 paragraphs. The document contains unnecessary information; argument; opinion and conclusions drawn from unstated facts. It does not comply with r227 which requires a pleading to be as brief as the nature of the case allows and to contain only a statement of the material facts on which the party relies. Under r258 and r259…

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 Law Society of Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Spaulding v Law Society of Tasmania [2004] TASSC 1
Case: [2004] TASSC 1
Decision Date: 21 January 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Spaulding v Law Society of Tasmania, the dispute centred on the amendment of a statement of claim in a proceeding brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, the Law Society of Tasmania. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The plaintiff sought to amend their statement of claim to include an additional cause of action, which the defendant opposed on the grounds that the amendment was not within the allowable scope under the relevant court rules and that it would be an embarrassment to the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had demonstrated reasonable cause to support the amendment of the statement of claim, and if the proposed amendment would cause any procedural embarrassment to the defendant. The court needed to determine if the amendment disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether it was permissible under the Rules of Court. Additionally, the court had to assess if allowing the amendment would lead to any procedural unfairness or inconvenience to the defendant.

The court examined the specific circumstances of the case, including the nature of the proposed amendment and the stage of the proceedings. It considered whether the amendment would introduce new facts or legal arguments that were not previously disclosed and whether such an amendment would prejudice the defendant's ability to adequately respond to the new cause of action. The court concluded that the amendment did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and would indeed cause procedural embarrassment to the defendant. Therefore, the court declined to allow the amendment to the statement of claim.

The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application to amend the statement of claim was dismissed. The court did not permit the introduction of the additional cause of action as sought by the plaintiff, thereby maintaining the integrity of the proceedings and the rights of both parties.

Orders