THUNDELARRA LTD -v- RICHMOND [2013] WASC 370

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 370
Case No:	CIV:2515/2012	Heard:	9 OCTOBER 2013
Coram:	EDELMAN J	Delivered:	9/10/13
No of pages:	6	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	THUNDELARRA LTD WILLIAM ROBERT RICHMOND KALLENIA MINES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Application by solicitors for order that they have ceased to act Order will generally be made unless special circumstances Order should be made
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 4.05 High Court Rules 1952 (Cth), O 7 r 7(1) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 8 r 7 Uniform Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 990, r 991
Case References:	Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Davies [2002] 1 Qd R 363 Jiangyin Yinying Goods and Materials Trade Co Ltd v Australia Victoria Capital Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 274 Plenty v Gladwin [1986] HCA 55; (1986) 67 ALR 26

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA CITATION : THUNDELARRA LTD -v- RICHMOND [2013] WASC 370 CORAM : EDELMAN J HEARD : 9 OCTOBER 2013 DELIVERED : 9 OCTOBER 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2515 of 2012 BETWEEN : THUNDELARRA LTD

First Plaintiff

AND

WILLIAM ROBERT RICHMOND

First Defendant

KALLENIA MINES PTY LTD

Second Defendant

Catchwords:

Application by solicitors for order that they have ceased to act - Order will generally be made unless special circumstances - Order should be made

Legislation:

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r 4.05

High Court Rules 1952 (Cth), O 7 r 7(1)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 8 r 7
Uniform Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 990, r 991

Result:

Application granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : In person

Second Defendant : No appearance

G E Taylor & Associates : Mr N Dillon

Solicitors:

First Plaintiff : No appearance

First Defendant : In person

Second Defendant : No appearance

G E Taylor & Associates : G E Taylor & Associates

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

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Davies [2002] 1 Qd R 363
Jiangyin Yinying Goods and Materials Trade Co Ltd v Australia Victoria Capital Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 274
Plenty v Gladwin [1986] HCA 55; (1986) 67 ALR 26

EDELMAN J

Introduction

1 These are the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing of an application by the solicitors for the defendants this morning for orders that they have ceased to act. The reasons which follow this introduction have been edited only for infelicities of expression.

2 At a directions hearing subsequent to the hearing of this application I said that these reasons would be published due to the potential for issues to arise from the content of the affidavit filed in this application, which I ordered should not be inspected by any person other than the defendants or their solicitors. No issue has arisen, no party objects to me hearing the case, and the trial will proceed…

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 Thundelarra Ltd v Richmond

Details

AGLC: THUNDELARRA LTD -v- RICHMOND [2013] WASC 370
Case: [2013] WASC 370
Decision Date: 9 OCTOBER 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by solicitors, acting for the plaintiff in a personal injury action, to be discharged from their role. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Thundelarra Ltd, was pursuing a claim against Richmond for personal injuries sustained by one of its employees. The solicitors sought to be discharged from their role due to a breakdown in their relationship with the plaintiff, which they claimed made it impossible for them to continue to act in the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the solicitors were entitled to be discharged from their role. The court considered whether there were any special circumstances that would prevent the solicitors from being discharged. The court noted that an order for the solicitors to be discharged is generally granted unless there are special circumstances that warrant a different outcome. The court also considered whether the plaintiff's interests would be prejudiced if the solicitors were discharged.

In determining whether the solicitors should be discharged, the court considered the nature of the dispute between the solicitors and the plaintiff, as well as the stage of the proceedings. The court found that there were no special circumstances that would prevent the solicitors from being discharged, and that the plaintiff's interests would not be prejudiced if the solicitors were discharged. The court noted that the plaintiff had had ample opportunity to instruct new solicitors and that there was no evidence that the delay caused by the breakdown in the relationship between the solicitors and the plaintiff would cause any prejudice to the plaintiff's case.

Accordingly, the court granted the application and made an order discharging the solicitors from their role in the case. The court noted that the plaintiff had been given sufficient time to find new solicitors and that there was no evidence that the delay caused by the breakdown in the relationship between the solicitors and the plaintiff would cause any prejudice to the plaintiff's case. The court also noted that the discharge of the solicitors would not cause any prejudice to the defendant's case. The final orders of the court were that the solicitors were discharged from their role and that the plaintiff was to pay the solicitors' costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application granted

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.