Sutherland v GHR Accounting - [2017] NSWSC 100

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sutherland v GHR Accounting [2017] NSWSC 100
Hearing dates: 15 February 2017
Decision date: 15 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Button J
Decision:
(1) The hearing of the notice of motion of the defendant is stood over part heard before me to 10AM on Friday 31 March 2017.
(2) Any further materials upon which the plaintiff, Mr Sutherland, relies must be filed and served by Friday 24 March 2017 at 4PM, such filing being able to be undertaken by provision of documents to my Chambers.
(3) Any new materials upon which the defendant relies must be filed and served no later than 4PM on Tuesday 28 March 2017, such filing being able to be undertaken in an identical way.
(4) The plaintiff must pay the costs of the defendant of today.
(5) As a matter of formality, the pending notice of motion of the plaintiff is stood over to 10AM Friday 31 March 2017.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – application for summary dismissal adjournment application of plaintiff – granted
Cases Cited: Sutherland v GHR Accounting and Anor [2015] NSWSC 1946
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Richard Craig Sutherland (Plaintiff)
GHR Accounting (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C J Peadon (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Self-represented (Plaintiff)
Colin Biggers & Paisley Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2015/236599
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

Introduction

By way of a notice of motion filed as long ago as 31 May 2016, GHR Accounting (the defendant) seeks to have the proceedings brought by Mr Richard Sutherland (the plaintiff) come to an end; in the alternative, his latest effort at preparing a statement of claim (he is and has been for a very large proportion of these proceedings unrepresented) is impugned.
The matter came before me today for the hearing of the motion. The plaintiff applied for an adjournment, which was opposed by counsel for the defendant. I received oral submissions from each party about that threshold question, and retired briefly to consider its resolution.

Background and submissions

Before recounting the competing submissions about the threshold question, I shall very briefly set out my understanding of the background, illuminated as it is by a detailed judgment of Hall J of 18 December 2015: Sutherland v GHR Accounting and Anor [2015] NSWSC 1946. Although no material was formally tendered before me on the adjournment application, I indicated to the parties that I had undertaken extensive reading of material provided to my Chambers by the parties before the hearing, and neither of them expressed discomfort with me taking into account what I had read informally.
The claim that the plaintiff is trying to make, in a nutshell, is that, as a result of allegedly negligent advice given by a firm of accountants to himself and to a company of which he was the controlling mind, the property portfolio of the company was destroyed, and his personal income derived from the company set at nought. Although the latest iteration of his claim arguably suffers from…

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 Sutherland v GHR Accounting

Details

AGLC: Sutherland v GHR Accounting [2017] NSWSC 100
Case: [2017] NSWSC 100
Decision Date: 15 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Sutherland v GHR Accounting was heard. The plaintiff, Mr Sutherland, sought to recover a debt owed by the defendant, GHR Accounting, a company registered in Queensland. The defendant filed an application for summary dismissal of the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the claim was statute-barred and that the plaintiff had failed to provide the necessary documentation to substantiate his claim. The plaintiff subsequently applied for an adjournment to provide the requested documentation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1969 (Cth) and whether the plaintiff could provide the necessary documentation to substantiate his claim within the timeframe of the adjournment. The court had to consider the provisions of the Limitation Act 1969 (Cth) and the rules of court regarding adjournment applications.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was not statute-barred and that the plaintiff had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. The court also found that the plaintiff had acted promptly in providing the necessary documentation and that an adjournment was warranted to allow the plaintiff to provide the remaining documentation. The court therefore granted the plaintiff's application for an adjournment and ordered that the defendant provide a response to the plaintiff's claim within 28 days of the adjournment.

The court did not make any final orders in this matter as the adjournment was granted to allow the plaintiff to provide the necessary documentation and for the defendant to respond to the plaintiff's claim. The matter is now set down for a further hearing to determine the merits of the plaintiff's claim.

Orders