Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc - [2023] VSC 110

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
PROPERTY LIST

S ECI 2018 01124

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND JOHN STUART	Plaintiff
v
MORDIALLOC SPORTING CLUB INCORPORATED (ARN A0027737R) & ORS (according to the attached Schedule)	Defendants

---

JUDGE:	Matthews AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 February 2023
DATE OF RULING:	14 March 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc & Ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 110

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by plaintiff for judgment based on admissions made in the defence of the first defendant – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, r 35.04 – ACT International Investment Pty Ltd v Li [2019] VSC 759; Chikabo Pty Ltd v Zphere Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] VSC 580.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr W Stark	Mahons with Yuncken & Yuncken Lawyers
For the First Defendant	Mr E Kelly	Fitzpatrick Legal
For the Eighth Defendant	Mr N Frenkel	HWL Ebsworth
For the Ninth Defendant	Mr T North KC, with Mr D O’Brien	McDonald Slater & Lay

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This is an application made by the plaintiff (‘Stuart’) by summons filed 25 August 2022 for judgment in respect of some of the relief sought by him in this proceeding, based on admissions made by the First Defendant, the Club in its defence. The application is made pursuant to r 35.04 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 (‘Rules’). By order made on the Court’s own motion on 8 February 2023, the application was referred to me for hearing and determination.

Stuart’s summons filed 25 August 2022 was addressed to the first defendant (‘MSC’, at times referred to as ‘the Club’) only. At a directions hearing in respect of the summons, I gave leave to the other defendants, being the eighth defendant (‘528 Main’) and the ninth defendant (‘JBI’), to file evidence and submissions in respect of the application, having heard argument and accepted that they ought be heard on the application.

Stuart relies on the affidavit of his solicitor, Richard John Ashley sworn 25 August 2022 and 528 Main on the affidavit of its solicitor, Nicholas Mark Holt sworn 13 December 2022.

All of the parties filed written outlines in respect of the application: Stuart on 22 December 2022; MSC on 23 January 2023; 528 Main on 11 January 2023; and JBI on 18 January 2023.

The relevant pleadings are Stuart’s further amended statement of claim filed 1 April 2022 (‘FASOC’); his second further amended statement of claim filed 10 October 2022 (‘SFASOC’); MSC’s defence dated 10 June 2022; and 528 Main’s defence 7 November 2022. As is clear from these dates, MSC’s defence was to the FASOC and it did not file an amended defence in response to the SFASOC, but nothing turns on that for the purposes of this application.

By the…

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 Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc

Details

AGLC: Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc [2023] VSC 110
Case: [2023] VSC 110
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stuart, the plaintiff, sought judgment against Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc, the first defendant, on the basis of admissions made in the defence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue was whether the court could grant judgment based on the admissions made in the defence, without the need for a trial. This issue arose under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, specifically rule 35.04, which allows for judgment based on admissions in the defence.

The court considered the relevant legal principles and authorities, including the cases of ACT International Investment Pty Ltd v Li and Chikabo Pty Ltd v Zphere Pty Ltd. These cases established that the court has discretion to grant judgment based on admissions in the defence, provided that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case. In this instance, the court found that Stuart had indeed established a prima facie case, and that the admissions in the defence of Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc were sufficient to warrant judgment in Stuart’s favour.

Having determined that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case, and that the admissions in the defence were sufficient to warrant judgment, the court exercised its discretion under rule 35.04 to grant judgment in favour of Stuart. The court found that it was appropriate to do so in the circumstances of this case, and that a trial was not necessary. The court also considered the impact of the admissions on the overall proceedings, and determined that granting judgment was the most efficient and effective way to resolve the dispute.

The court ordered that judgment be entered in favour of Stuart, and that Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc pay Stuart’s costs of the application. The court also ordered that the matter be listed for further directions, to determine the next steps in the proceedings. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the admissions made in a defence, and the potential consequences of those admissions for the overall proceedings.

Orders