Stuart v Hanna - [2013] WASC 133

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION: STUART -v- HANNA [2013] WASC 133

CORAM: MASTER SANDERSON

HEARD: 20 MARCH 2013

DELIVERED : 18 APRIL 2013

FILE NO/S: CIV 1997 of 2012

BETWEEN: RICHARD ANTHONY STUART
Plaintiff
AND
JULIAN PHILIP HANNA
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to strike out statement of claim - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Statement of claim struck out
Leave given to re-plead

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr S J Howells & Ms E Y H Scarff
Defendant: Mr J Thomson SC & Mr S D Hubbard

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Ilberys Lawyers
Defendant: DLA Piper

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

Nil

MASTER SANDERSON: By chamber summons filed 18 December 2012 the defendant applied to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim. Subsequent to the application being made, but prior to the hearing, the plaintiff foreshadowed amending the statement of claim in terms of a minute of proposed amended statement of claim dated 1 March 2013. Counsel for the defendant indicated at the hearing he was prepared to deal with this document - on the basis the defendant objected to the plaintiff being given leave to amend in terms of the minute. That is the way the matter proceeded.
The plaintiff alleges in April/May 1999 he and the defendant, together with one Terrence Grammer, entered into a partnership known as 'Australian Nickel Project Consultants' (ANPC). The partnership agreement was said to be partly oral, partly in writing and partly by conduct. There were express and implied terms. It is pleaded the parties owed one another fiduciary duties. By par 7 ‑ 12 the plaintiff said the partners did certain things which, taken together, establish there was the partnership as pleaded.
Paragraph 13 pleads the parties developed what they define as 'the Proposal'. Particulars of the Proposal are given. In summary it is alleged the partners worked over a period of some months to identify, examine, assess and record a large number of nickel deposits 'in the region'. That phrase is undefined. It would appear the Proposal was embodied in a document. It is pleaded the Proposal was partnership property and from November 1999 it was promoted by the partners to potential investors. One of those investors was a Mr Terrence Streeter. As a result of discussions with Mr Streeter a company styled 'Western Areas No Liability' (WANL) was incorporated. Between January and May 2000 the partners worked on a prospectus and undertook certain exploration work, presumably on tenements detailed in the Proposal.
By par 23 it is pleaded in or about March 2000 the partners agreed with Mr Streeter that if and when funds became available that would sustain payments to them they would be paid remuneration. Presumably this means each of the partners would be employed by WANL. Significantly there is no plea the partnership would be employed by WANL. But it is implied, if not expressly stated, each of the partners was to be employed by WANL in…

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 Stuart v Hanna

Details

AGLC: Stuart v Hanna [2013] WASC 133
Case: [2013] WASC 133
Decision Date: 18 APRIL 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart and Hanna were the parties involved in a legal dispute that was heard in the Federal Circuit Court. Stuart filed a statement of claim against Hanna, which was subsequently challenged by Hanna through an application to strike out. Hanna's application centred on the contention that Stuart's claim was frivolous and vexatious, and therefore should not be heard by the court. The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the application to strike out should be successful and whether Stuart's claim was indeed frivolous or vexatious.

The court considered the principles governing applications to strike out, particularly focusing on the requirement that such applications should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court held that the application to strike out was not one that turned on its own facts but rather on the broader legal principles concerning frivolous and vexatious claims. The court found that the application to strike out was premature, as it was made before Stuart had the opportunity to amend his statement of claim. Additionally, the court determined that the claim was not frivolous or vexatious based on the information available at that stage of the proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Hanna's application to strike out Stuart's statement of claim. The court allowed Stuart to amend his statement of claim, providing him with an opportunity to address any deficiencies that Hanna had identified. The court's decision emphasised the importance of allowing parties to have their claims heard unless there are clear grounds for dismissing them as frivolous or vexatious.

Orders