STUART -v- HANNA [No 2] [2013] WASC 453

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 453
Case No:	CIV:1997/2012	Heard:	3 DECEMBER 2013
Coram:	MASTER SANDERSON	Delivered:	17/12/13
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Leave to amend granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	RICHARD ANTHONY STUART JULIAN PHILIP HANNA TERRENCE ROLAND GRAMMER
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to amend statement of claim Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 183 Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 Stuart v Hanna [2013] WASC 133 Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game [2007] VSCA 86

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : STUART -v- HANNA [No 2] [2013] WASC 453 CORAM : MASTER SANDERSON HEARD : 3 DECEMBER 2013 DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 1997 of 2012 BETWEEN : RICHARD ANTHONY STUART

Plaintiff

AND

JULIAN PHILIP HANNA

First Defendant

TERRENCE ROLAND GRAMMER

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

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

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Leave to amend granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr S J Howells

First Defendant : Mr J A Thomson SC

Second Defendant : Mr D E Molony

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Ilberys Lawyers

First Defendant : DLA Piper

Second Defendant : Optima Legal

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

Professional Services of Australia Pty Ltd v Computer Accounting and Tax Pty Ltd [No 2] [2009] WASCA 183
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332
Stuart v Hanna [2013] WASC 133
Victorian WorkCover Authority v Game [2007] VSCA 86

1 MASTER SANDERSON: This is the plaintiff's application for leave to amend its statement of claim in terms of a minute of proposed amended statement of claim dated 9 October 2013. The first defendant opposes the application. The original statement of claim was struck out on the application of the first defendant: see Stuart v Hanna [2013] WASC 133. The parties have negotiated at length about the form of the statement of claim. I accept those negotiations have been conducted in good faith and in an attempt to resolve the parties differences.

2 It was the first defendant's position, despite all the negotiations that had taken place and despite the best efforts of experienced counsel, it simply was not possible to formulate the plaintiff's claim in an acceptable way. It was submitted leave to amend in terms of the minute ought be refused and no further leave to replead ought be granted. This is a drastic step - it is akin to an application for summary judgment by the first defendant. Clearly, orders sought by the first defendant ought only be made in the clearest of cases when there is no real prospect of the plaintiff's claim succeeding.

3 This action relates to a partnership dispute. The plaintiff and the first and second defendants…

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 [No 2]

Details

AGLC: Stuart v Hanna [No 2] [2013] WASC 453
Case: [2013] WASC 453
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stuart v Hanna [No 2], the Supreme Court of Western Australia was asked to determine whether the plaintiff, Richard Anthony Stuart, should be granted leave to amend his statement of claim in a partnership dispute involving the first defendant, Julian Philip Hanna, and the second defendant, Terrence Roland Grammer. The case arose from a partnership that the parties had entered into around April or May 1999, with the aim of developing and marketing a proposal related to nickel deposits. The dispute primarily centered around the disparity in remuneration between the plaintiff and the first defendant after the formation of a company, Western Areas No Liability (WANL), which listed on the stock exchange. The plaintiff sought to amend his statement of claim to address the deficiencies highlighted in the court's earlier decision to strike out the original pleadings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the plaintiff's proposed amendments sufficiently addressed the deficiencies in the original statement of claim, particularly the lack of a logical basis for the plaintiff's contention that his remuneration was partnership property. The court also had to consider whether the amended pleadings adequately addressed the misrepresentation and interference with contractual relations claims. The first defendant opposed the application, arguing that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently rectify the deficiencies and that the claims were, in any event, unarguable.

The court found that while the proposed amendments did not fully resolve the issue of whether the plaintiff's remuneration could be considered partnership property, the arguments presented by the plaintiff were not unarguable. The court was not convinced that the plaintiff could not establish that the partnership continued after the partners were employed by WANL and that their remuneration was partnership property. The court also found that the pleading of the misrepresentation claim was sufficiently clear to allow the first defendant to understand the case he had to meet, although the plaintiff needed to provide more specific details about the opportunity he had foregone. The court was less satisfied with the pleading of the interference with contractual relations claim and directed the plaintiff to reconsider this aspect of the claim.

Ultimately, the court granted leave to amend the statement of claim, largely in the terms proposed by the plaintiff, with the exception of the interference with contractual relations claim which required further consideration. The court ordered the parties to confer on the precise form of the orders.

Orders