Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd v Johnson - [2025] NSWDC 151

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd v Johnson [2025] NSWDC 151
Hearing dates: 17 April 2025
Date of orders: 01 May 2025
Decision date: 01 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Cole DCJ
Decision:
(1) The defendant’s defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim is struck out under rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
(2) The defendant’s Notice to Produce served on the plaintiff on 31 July 2024 is struck out.
(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Striking out

Legislation Cited:
Australian Consumer Law (NSW)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Entertainment One Films Australia Pty Ltd v Hopscotch Pictures Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 365
Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255
Joseph v Spencer [2025] NSWCA 80
Sentinel Springwood & Ors v Verus & Ors

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Valorum Law Group (Plaintiff)
Gregory Johnson (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Robinson (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Valorum Law Group (Plaintiff)

File Number(s): 2022/335546
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

By Notice of Motion filed on 27 February 2025, the plaintiff seeks an order striking out the defendant’s Defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘the UCPR’). The defendant also seeks to have a Notice to Produce, which was served upon it on 31 July 2024, struck out.
The Notice of Motion was heard on 17 April 2025. The defendant was called three times outside the courtroom and there was no response. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant. I note that the defendant provided a medical certificate from a General Practitioner saying that the defendant was unfit from 10 March to 10 April 2025 inclusive, on account of a “medical condition”. That certificate does not cover the date of the hearing of the Notice of Motion. Even if it had, the description of the cause of the defendant’s unfitness is too vague for the certificate to be persuasive in the context of an application for an adjournment, had such an application been made. I further note that the defendant provided, by email, on 31 March 2025, a letter dated 21 March 2025 from a Gastroenterologist, Dr Fitzgibbon. Dr Fitzgibbon said that the defendant would be unable to “attend appointments or hearings related to his active court process” from 10 March 2025 until the middle of the week following the letter, which took the period of time to 27 March 2025, because he was a hospital inpatient during that period. That letter also does not cover the date of the hearing of the Notice of Motion.
In the proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to recover legal fees from the defendant, Mr Gregory Johnson. The fees were allegedly incurred by Verus Construction Pty Ltd (‘Verus’), a building company, over a period…

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 Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd v Johnson

Details

AGLC: Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd v Johnson [2025] NSWDC 151
Case: [2025] NSWDC 151
Decision Date: 01 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd versus Johnson, the plaintiff sought to have the defendant’s defence and a Notice to Produce struck out in the Local Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's defence was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process, and that the Notice to Produce was improperly served and not relevant to the proceedings. The defendant argued that the defence was valid and the Notice to Produce was necessary for the discovery of relevant documents.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's defence met the criteria for being struck out under rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). It also had to consider whether the Notice to Produce was properly served and relevant to the proceedings. The court had to assess the substance of the defence and the Notice to Produce to determine whether they were frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process, or if they had any real prospect of success.

The court found that the defendant’s defence was frivolous and vexatious, and thus struck it out. The court also found that the Notice to Produce was not properly served and was irrelevant to the proceedings, leading to its striking out as well. The court concluded that the defendant had acted improperly and ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Accordingly, the court ordered that the defendant's defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim be struck out, the defendant's Notice to Produce be struck out, and that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The defendant’s defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim is struck out under rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

(2) The defendant’s Notice to Produce served on the plaintiff on 31 July 2024 is struck out.

(3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Valorum Law Group Pty Ltd v Johnson [2025] NSWDC 151
Hearing dates:	17 April 2025
Date of orders:	01 May 2025
Decision date:	01 May 2025
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Cole DCJ
Decision:	(1) The defendant’s defence to the Further Amended Statement of Claim is struck out under rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). (2) The defendant’s Notice to Produce served on the plaintiff on 31 July 2024 is struck out. (3) The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs of the Notice of Motion.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Striking out
Legislation Cited:	Australian Consumer Law (NSW) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Entertainment One Films Australia Pty Ltd v Hopscotch Pictures Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 365 Harvey v John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 255 Joseph v Spencer [2025] NSWCA 80 Sentinel Springwood & Ors v Verus & Ors
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Valorum Law Group (Plaintiff) Gregory Johnson (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: C Robinson (Plaintiff) Solicitors: Valorum Law Group (Plaintiff)
File Number(s):	2022/335546
Publication restriction:	Nil