Legal Research
Cases
Traffic Technique Pty Ltd v Burgmann

Traffic Technique Pty Ltd v Burgmann

Case [2020] VSCA 319 10 December 2020

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2020 0024

TRAFFIC TECHNIQUE PTY LTD (ACN 153 201 800)	Applicant
v
LLOYD BURGMANN and LJ & LJ PTY LTD (ACN 612 534 442) (trading as A PLUS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT)	Respondents

---

JUDGES:	TATE, SIFRIS and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 December 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 319
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Traffic Technique Pty Ltd v Burgmann (County Court of Victoria, Judge Macnamara, 25 February 2020)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for leave to appeal from interlocutory decision – Application to amend defence on first day of trial – Whether judge erred in allowing amendment and vacating trial date – Whether judge failed to give proper consideration to case management principles – Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175, Northern Health v Kuipers [2015] VSCA 172, Swan Hill Chemicals Pty Ltd v MA & J Tripodi Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 264, discussed – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Applicant

Mr A M Dinelli with

Mr N Walter

bdlegal

For the Respondents

Mr J Tierney

John M Davine

TATE JA
SIFRIS JA:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction and summary.............................................................................

1

The County Court proceeding.........................................................................

2

(1) The pleadings................................................................................................

2

(2) Pre-trial directions........................................................................................

5

(3) Applications on the first day of hearing.......................................................

5

The Ruling.........................................................................................................

13

Grounds of appeal............................................................................................

17

Did the judge err in granting leave to amend the defence?........................

18

Conclusion ........................................................................................................

28

Introduction and summary

Traffic Technique Pty Ltd (‘Traffic’) seeks leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling made in the exercise of a discretionary power on a matter of practice and procedure in the County Court, namely, the granting of leave to amend a defence, the vacation of a trial date, and an adjournment for further directions.

Traffic, which provides traffic management services, brought a proceeding in the County Court against a former employee, Lloyd Burgmann (‘Burgmann’), alleging breach of fiduciary duties as a result of Burgmann soliciting work from Traffic’s clients and appropriating Traffic’s intellectual property, as well as a breach of an equitable duty of confidence in using Traffic’s proprietary traffic management information. Traffic also sues Burgmann’s company, LJ & LJ Pty Ltd (trading as ‘A Plus Traffic Management’) (‘A Plus’), alleging knowing assistance and knowing receipt in respect of the breaches of fiduciary duty. Burgmann and A Plus are the respondents to the application for leave to appeal.

On the morning of the first day of a four-day trial, Burgmann and A Plus sought leave to adjourn the hearing to enable Burgmann and A Plus to amend their defence to plead the defences of laches and acquiescence and prepare an expert report. The applications were opposed. The trial judge gave a ruling on 25 February 2020 granting leave to amend and vacating the trial date (‘the Ruling’).[1] Traffic now seeks leave to appeal…

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 Traffic Technique Pty Ltd v Burgmann

Details

AGLC: Traffic Technique Pty Ltd v Burgmann [2020] VSCA 319
Case: [2020] VSCA 319
Decision Date: 10 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Traffic Technique Pty Ltd brought an application against Burgmann for an interlocutory decision in relation to an amendment to their defence on the first day of trial. The application was made to the Court of Appeal, which had to determine whether the trial judge had erred in allowing the amendment and vacating the trial date. Additionally, the Court of Appeal had to decide whether the judge failed to give proper consideration to case management principles. The Court of Appeal referred to the principles established in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University, Northern Health v Kuipers, and Swan Hill Chemicals Pty Ltd v MA & J Tripodi Pty Ltd to assess the application.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge did not err in allowing the amendment to the defence and vacating the trial date. The Court held that the trial judge had considered the relevant case management principles and exercised their discretion appropriately. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge had considered the factors outlined in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University, including the merits of the case, the interests of justice, and the need to avoid unnecessary delay. The Court of Appeal also noted that the trial judge had considered the factors outlined in Northern Health v Kuipers and Swan Hill Chemicals Pty Ltd v MA & J Tripodi Pty Ltd, including the timing of the application, the availability of alternative remedies, and the potential impact on the parties.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in allowing the amendment to the defence and vacating the trial date. The Court of Appeal also held that the trial judge had given proper consideration to the case management principles and exercised their discretion appropriately. The Court of Appeal emphasised the importance of case management principles in ensuring that cases are heard efficiently and fairly. The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge had considered the relevant factors and exercised their discretion in accordance with the principles established in the relevant authorities.

Orders