Weedbrook v Partlin - [2024] QDC 194

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Weedbrook v Partlin [2024] QDC 194

PARTIES:

OLAF WEEDBROOK (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN MARC WEEDBROOK)
(Applicant)

v

NATHAN JAMES PARTLIN
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

2091/24

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 and 13 September 2024

JUDGE:

Porter KC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed.

2.   The proceedings continue as if commenced by claim.

3.   The plaintiff file and serve a statement of claim within 28 days of the date of this order.

4.   The defendant’s defence must at a minimum:

(a)   State with respect to each allegation of fact in the statement of claim whether that allegation is admitted, not admitted or denied; and

(b) Give notice of any intention by the defendant to rely upon any relevant statutory defence or ground of dispensation

5. The defendant is not otherwise required to comply with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules until the close of the plaintiff’s case.

6. If on the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant wishes to give or call evidence in his defence of the proceedings, he must file forthwith a defence which complies with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – where the plaintiff sues the defendant on two written loan agreements for a total of $350,000 – where the debts sued for correspond with debts the subject of criminal charges of fraud and stealing laid against the respondent – where the respondent seeks a stay of the civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings are resolved – where it is possible an overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings gives rise to a risk the respondent be required to waive self-incrimination privilege to defend the civil proceedings and meet his disclosure obligations – where the defendant swears the criminal matter is currently before the Mental Health Court and there has not yet been a committal – where delay in the civil proceedings will be considerable should a stay be granted – where there is no evidence of media attention in the civil proceedings to found a basis of anticipating unfairness of any criminal trial – where refusing the stay is unlikely to impose too great a financial burden on the respondent – where the risk of influencing prosecution witnesses in the criminal proceedings by disclosing a defence in the civil proceeding is speculative, only – where the applicant has good prima facie prospects of success – whether the stay ought to be granted

PROCEDURE – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Pleadings – Defence – where, in the alternative, the defendant seeks that the proceedings continue as if started by claim, and the plaintiff be directed to deliver a statement of claim – where the defendant may seek to claim privileges against self-incrimination in relation to the extant…

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 Weedbrook v Partlin

Details

AGLC: Weedbrook v Partlin [2024] QDC 194
Case: [2024] QDC 194
Decision Date: 14 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Weedbrook v Partlin, the plaintiff sued the defendant for debts owed under two written loan agreements amounting to $350,000. The debts in question were the subject of criminal charges against the defendant, including fraud and stealing. The defendant sought a stay of the civil proceedings until the resolution of the criminal charges, citing concerns about potential overlap that could force him to waive his privilege against self-incrimination and meet disclosure obligations in the civil case. Additionally, the defendant raised the possibility of prejudice to his defence if the civil proceedings proceeded before the criminal charges were finalised.

The court considered the factors relevant to granting a stay, including the overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings, the defendant’s self-incrimination privilege, the potential unfairness of the criminal trial, the financial burden on the defendant, and the risk of influencing prosecution witnesses. The court noted that the criminal proceedings were before the Mental Health Court and had not yet reached the committal stage. There was no evidence of media attention on the civil proceedings to suggest unfairness in the criminal trial. The court also found that the defendant had good prospects of success in his defence against the civil claim.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that it was not appropriate to delay the civil proceedings. Instead, the proceedings continued as if commenced by claim, with the plaintiff required to file and serve a statement of claim within 28 days. The defendant's defence needed to specify the stance on each allegation of fact and any statutory defences or grounds of dispensation. The defendant was not required to fully comply with certain procedural rules until the close of the plaintiff’s case. If the defendant wished to give or call evidence in his defence after the plaintiff's case closed, he had to file a defence that complied with the relevant rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed.

2. The proceedings continue as if commenced by claim.

3. The plaintiff file and serve a statement of claim within 28 days of the date of this order.

4. The defendant’s defence must at a minimum:

(a) State with respect to each allegation of fact in the statement of claim whether that allegation is admitted, not admitted or denied; and

(b) Give notice of any intention by the defendant to rely upon any relevant statutory defence or ground of dispensation

5. The defendant is not otherwise required to comply with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules until the close of the plaintiff’s case.

6. If on the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant wishes to give or call evidence in his defence of the proceedings, he must file forthwith a defence which complies with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166.

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.

CITATION:	Weedbrook v Partlin [2024] QDC 194
PARTIES:	OLAF WEEDBROOK (BY HIS LITIGATION GUARDIAN MARC WEEDBROOK) (Applicant) v NATHAN JAMES PARTLIN (Respondent)
FILE NO:	2091/24
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	14 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 and 13 September 2024
JUDGE:	Porter KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application for a stay of the proceedings is dismissed. 2. The proceedings continue as if commenced by claim. 3. The plaintiff file and serve a statement of claim within 28 days of the date of this order. 4. The defendant’s defence must at a minimum: (a) State with respect to each allegation of fact in the statement of claim whether that allegation is admitted, not admitted or denied; and (b) Give notice of any intention by the defendant to rely upon any relevant statutory defence or ground of dispensation 5. The defendant is not otherwise required to comply with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules until the close of the plaintiff’s case. 6. If on the close of the plaintiff’s case, the defendant wishes to give or call evidence in his defence of the proceedings, he must file forthwith a defence which complies with rr 149(1)(b), (c). 150, 157, 165 and 166.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – where the plaintiff sues the defendant on two written loan agreements for a total of $350,000 – where the debts sued for correspond with debts the subject of criminal charges of fraud and stealing laid against the respondent – where the respondent seeks a stay of the civil proceedings until the criminal proceedings are resolved – where it is possible an overlap between the civil and criminal proceedings gives rise to a risk the respondent be required to waive self-incrimination privilege to defend the civil proceedings and meet his disclosure obligations – where the defendant swears the criminal matter is currently before the Mental Health Court and there has not yet been a committal – where delay in the civil proceedings will be considerable should a stay be granted – where there is no evidence of media attention in the civil proceedings to found a basis of anticipating unfairness of any criminal trial – where refusing the stay is unlikely to impose too great a financial burden on the respondent – where the risk of influencing prosecution witnesses in the criminal proceedings by disclosing a defence in the civil proceeding is speculative, only – where the applicant has good prima facie prospects of success – whether the stay ought to be granted PROCEDURE – Civil proceedings in State and Territory courts – Pleadings – Defence – where, in the alternative, the defendant seeks that the proceedings continue as if started by claim, and the plaintiff be directed to deliver a statement of claim – where the defendant may seek to claim privileges against self-incrimination in relation to the extant…