SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Stubberfield v Lippiatt [2006] QSC 281
PARTIES:
JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD
(plaintiff)
v
FREDERICK WALTON LIPPIATT
(first defendant)
LIPPIATT & CO (A FIRM)
(second defendant)FILE NO/S:
8540 of 2004
DIVISION:
Trial Division
PROCEEDING:
Application
ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court DELIVERED ON:
3 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 March 2006
JUDGE:
Philippides J
ORDER:
The proceedings are stayed, save for any claim arising out of the payment by the plaintiff to the second defendant of the sum of $3,300, in respect of which there is liberty to replead
CATCHWORDS:
PROCEDURE – Supreme Court Procedure – pleadings – statement of claim – striking out statement of claim – stay of proceedings – whether abuse of process – whether frivolous and vexatious – whether matters which could and should have been litigated in prior proceedings – whether re-litigation of matters dealt with in prior proceedings
Limitations of Actions Act 1974 (Qld)
Trusts Act 1973 (Qld)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 171, r 293Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 80 ALJR 1100
Brisbane City Council v Attorney-General for Queensland (Ex rel Scurr & Anor) (1978) 19 ALR 681
Cabassi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victorian Legal Aid (2005) 79 ALJR 755
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hamilton v Oades (1989) 166 CLR 486Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197
Stubberfield v Lippiatt [2002] QCA 447
Stubberfield v Paradise Grove Pty Ltd [2000] QCA 299von Risefer v Permanent Trustee Company Limited [2005] 1 Qd R 681
Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd [1975] AC 581COUNSEL:
Plaintiff appeared in person
Mr A P J Collins for the first and second defendantsSOLICITORS:
Plaintiff appeared in person
Minter Ellison for the first and second defendants
PHILIPPIDES J:
Background
The disputes, the subject of the present proceedings, concern matters that occurred in some instances over 10 years ago and have featured in prolonged litigation between the plaintiff and the second defendant in various courts.
The plaintiff commenced the within Supreme Court proceedings by claim filed on 1 October 2004, defences were filed on 28 October 2004, followed by the plaintiff’s reply on 21 December 2004. The plaintiff filed notices to admit facts and to admit documents on 18 January 2005, to which the defendants responded by notices filed on 28 January 2005. There was then a period of inaction until 15 November 2005, when the plaintiff filed a list of documents. By application filed on 1 December 2005, the plaintiff sought various orders, including orders for disclosure.
The defendants thereupon filed an application, seeking judgment against the plaintiff pursuant to r 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (“UCPR”), on the basis that they have a complete defence pursuant to the provisions of the Limitations of Actions Act 1974. Alternatively, the defendants applied to strike…
Continue reading Stubberfield v Lippiatt
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Stubberfield v Lippiatt [2006] QSC 281
- Case
- [2006] QSC 281
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims amounted to an abuse of process, were frivolous and vexatious, and if the matters had already been litigated in prior proceedings. The court considered the nature of the claims, the relationship between the parties, and the circumstances in which the claims were brought. The court also examined whether there were any prospects of success for the plaintiff's claims, and whether the proceedings were being brought in bad faith.
The court found that the plaintiff's claims were an abuse of process and were frivolous and vexatious. The court held that the matters had already been litigated in prior proceedings, and there were no prospects of success for the plaintiff's claims. The court also found that the proceedings were being brought in bad faith, and that there had been a deliberate attempt to re-litigate matters that had already been dealt with. The court stayed the proceedings, save for any claim arising out of the payment by the plaintiff to the second defendant of the sum of $3,300, in respect of which there was liberty to replead.
The court's final orders were that the proceedings were stayed, save for any claim arising out of the payment by the plaintiff to the second defendant of the sum of $3,300, in respect of which there was liberty to replead. The court also ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceeding, to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed. The court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that claims are not brought in bad faith, and that parties do not seek to re-litigate matters that have already been dealt with in prior proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
The proceedings are stayed, save for any claim arising out of the payment by the plaintiff to the second defendant of the sum of $3,300, in respect of which there is liberty to replead
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.