Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc (No 2) - [2023] VSC 181

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:	22 March 2023
DATE OF RULING:	12 April 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc & Ors (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 181

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by one defendant to set aside the counterclaim of another defendant – Whether counterclaim complies with rr 10.02 and 10.03 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 – Interaction with third party procedure under rr 11.15 and 11.01 - Whether leave should be given to dispense with requirement to comply with rr 10.02 and 10.03 – Alternative application to dismiss counterclaim pursuant to r 23.01 - Alternative application to strike out counterclaim under r 23.02 – Counterclaim does not comply with rr 10.02 and 10.03 but in these circumstances the requirement to comply will be dispensed with – Application to dismiss counterclaim refused – Specified paragraphs of counterclaim struck out with right to re-plead.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Eighth Defendant	Mr N Frenkel	HWL Ebsworth
For the Ninth Defendant	Mr D R J O’Brien	McDonald Slater & Lay

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 2

Factual background...................................................................................................................... 2
The pleadings................................................................................................................................. 3
The VCAT Proceeding and related appeals.............................................................................. 7
JBI’s separate proceeding............................................................................................................. 8
528 Main’s separate proceeding................................................................................................ 11

Application to set aside the Further Amended Counterclaim on the contention that it does not comply with the Rules.............................................................................................................. 13

Relevant provisions of the Rules.............................................................................................. 13
528 Main’s submissions regarding rr 10.02 and 10.03........................................................... 15
JBI’s submissions regarding rr 10.02 and 10.03...................................................................... 16
528 Main’s submissions regarding the use of a third party claim as an alternative to a counterclaim.............................................................................................................................................. 18
JBI’s submissions regarding the use of a third party claim as an alternative to a counterclaim.............................................................................................................................................. 19
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 20

Application to stay or dismiss the Further Amended Counterclaim under Rule 23.01..... 23

Relevant provisions of the Rules.............................................................................................. 23
528 Main’s submissions.............................................................................................................. 23
JBI’s submissions......................................................................................................................... 26
Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 27

Application to strike out the Further Amended Counterclaim under Rule 23.02............... 29

Relevant provisions of the Rules.............................................................................................. 30
Paragraph 1 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 30
Paragraph 3 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 31
Paragraph 4 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 31
Paragraph 5 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 32
Paragraph 7 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 32
Paragraph 8 of the Further Amended Counterclaim............................................................. 33
Paragraphs 9-12 of the Further Amended Counterclaim...................................................... 33
Paragraph 14 of the Further Amended Counterclaim........................................................... 34
Paragraph 15 of the Further Amended Counterclaim........................................................... 34
Paragraph 16 of the Further Amended Counterclaim........................................................... 35
Paragraph 17 of the Further Amended Counterclaim........................................................... 35
Paragraphs 19-25 of the Further Amended Counterclaim.................................................... 35
The prayer for relief against MSC............................................................................................. 36
The prayer for relief against 528 Main..................................................................................... 36

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 36

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

This is…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] VSC 181
Decision Date: 12 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stuart v Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc (No 2) involved the plaintiff Stuart, who had initiated proceedings against Mordialloc Sporting Club Inc and another defendant. The nature of the dispute centred around the procedural aspects of a counterclaim filed by one defendant against the other. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The second defendant sought to set aside the counterclaim, arguing it did not comply with certain rules of court. The primary legal issues were whether the counterclaim complied with rules 10.02 and 10.03 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, and if not, whether leave should be granted to dispense with these requirements or if the counterclaim should be dismissed or struck out.

The court addressed the issue by examining the interaction between the rules governing counterclaims and those concerning third-party procedure. It was determined that while the counterclaim did not strictly adhere to rules 10.02 and 10.03, the circumstances justified dispensing with the need for strict compliance. The court found that the procedural irregularity did not prejudice the other party or cause any substantial injustice. Consequently, the application to set aside the counterclaim was refused, but certain specified paragraphs were struck out, allowing the second defendant the opportunity to re-plead.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle of flexibility in procedural rules to ensure justice is served. It acknowledged the importance of procedural rules but also recognised that rigid adherence could sometimes lead to unjust outcomes. The court's decision demonstrated a balanced approach, upholding procedural integrity while also considering the practicalities and fairness of the case. This nuanced approach allowed the second defendant to correct the procedural deficiencies without dismissing the counterclaim entirely.

The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the counterclaim was refused. However, certain paragraphs of the counterclaim were struck out, and the second defendant was granted the right to re-plead those parts of the counterclaim. This outcome ensured that the procedural shortcomings were addressed while allowing the case to proceed in an equitable manner.

Orders