Williamson v Elders
[2016] NSWSC 1505
•19 October 2016
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Elders [2016] NSWSC 1505 Hearing dates: 19 October 2016 Date of orders: 19 October 2016 Decision date: 19 October 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: (1) Notice of Motion filed 13 October 2016 dismissed. (2) Plaintiff to pay the defendant’s costs of the Motion on an indemnity basis.
Catchwords: Motion to strike out Defence – asserted Defence based on evidence that could not be true – argument untenable – still no question no principle Cases Cited: Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson (Plaintiff)
Elders Limited (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
In person (Plaintiff)
D Robertson (Second Defendant)
Unrepresented (Plaintiff)
Cowell Clarke (Second Defendant)
File Number(s): 2015/226349
EX TEMPORE Judgment
-
HIS HONOUR: By Notice of Motion filed 13 October 2016 the plaintiff, Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson, seeks to strike out paragraph 14 of the Defence filed by the defendant Elders Limited (“Elders”). To understand the Notice of Motion, it is necessary to say something about the background to the proceedings.
-
In his Second Further Amended Statement of Claim, Mr Williamson sues Elders as the legal entity said to be the responsible agent acting for the vendor of the property known as “Reevesdale” that he purchased in 2007. In broad terms, Mr Williamson complains that to the knowledge of the relevant Elders representative, Mr Les Hannan, and without his knowledge, there was a development proposal to place a quarry on a nearby property, Ardmore Park, which, if pursued, had the potential materially to affect the value and enjoyment of Reevesdale. Mr Williamson claims that because of that development, actions were taken by his financier to require him to sell properties because the amount he paid for Reevesdale was substantially below its actual value and that ultimately he suffered significant financial loss.
-
In paragraph 21 of his Statement of Claim, Mr Williamson recounts a conversation that was said to be had with Mr Hannan, when he was inspecting the property, at which Mr Hannan was asked why the property was being sold. Paragraph 21 pleads that Mr Hannan stated it was because one of the vendors had a fear that they had seen ghosts at the property and she did not want to return. Paragraph 21 also pleads that was the "sole reason given by Hannan in response to the express inquiry from the plaintiff as to the reasons behind the sale.”
-
Paragraph 22 of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim then pleads as follows:
“At no stage subsequently did Hannan say anything else that was material before exchange of contracts and settlement (which both occurred on 24 July 2007) by way of explanation or qualification of the reason given to the plaintiff for the Vendor's decision to sell Reevesdale. At the time of contracts and settlement the plaintiff was wholly unaware of the intended quarry development on the adjacent land at Ardmore Park.”
-
Paragraph 23 then alleges that Mr Hannan knew there were plans to develop Ardmore Park, and specifically pleads that
“The reason that the Vendor was selling was because of the threat posed to Reevesdale by the potential development of Ardmore Park."
-
Paragraph 14 of Elders' Defence pleads as follows:
“The Defendant denies paragraph 22 of the Further Amended Statement of Claim and said that, after Mr Hannan had accompanied the Plaintiff on the inspection of Reevesdale, Mr Hannan spoke to the Plaintiff and informed him that there was a proposed quarry on the Oallen Ford Road.”
-
Mr Williamson now seeks to strike out paragraph 14 of the Defence. In his Notice of Motion he contends that the paragraph is:
“…manifestly untrue and is designed to cause prejudice to or cause a delay in the prosecution of this case and is otherwise an abuse of process and is in derogation of the duty of the pleader to have an honest belief in the truth of the pleading.”
-
In support of this contention, he has filed his own affidavit denying there was any such conversation with Mr Hannan.
-
In defence of the motion, the solicitor for Elders has stated on oath that paragraph 14 of the defence was supported by an affidavit, filed in other Supreme Court proceedings involving Mr Williamson, by Mr Hannan who has since passed away.
-
In his affidavit of 21 April 2015 filed in those other proceedings (2012/306629), which were between Mr Williamson and the solicitors who acted for him on the purchase, Mr Hannan states that at some stage he met Mr Williamson at the property and they had a conversation in which Mr Williamson asked him about some placards that were displayed on the road leading to the property that complained about a quarry proposal. Mr Hannan claims that he said to Mr Williamson, "I don't know much about it. I'll make some inquiries." Mr Hannan then says that after that visit he "stopped at a house in Mountain Ash Road that had a placard on the front of it." He says he knocked on the door, had a conversation with the man who answered and he told Mr Hannan that he was "protesting against a quarry that they want to build on Oallen Ford Road”. Mr Hannan said that person described themselves as "an organiser of the action group" and stated that "[t]here are legal proceedings over the development application." Mr Hannan states that after that conversation he then telephoned Mr Williamson and told him that he had spoken:
“…to a man in Bungonia about the placards you asked about. He told me there is a proposed quarry on the Oallen Ford Road. He said that it would have an effect on Bungonia and the area. There would be construction and trucks and all that stuff. He told me they are going through court at the moment. I have his contact details if you would like them."
-
In his affidavit Mr Hannan states that Mr Williamson then said, "Thanks for that. I'll make some inquiries."
-
The materiality of this conversation, if it is shown to have occurred, is obvious. If it were proven that Mr Williamson was aware of the quarry proposal and its potential to affect Reevesdale before he purchased it, that would at the very least cause significant damage to his case.
-
On this application Mr Williamson has obtained an affidavit from the secretary of the Bungonia Progress Association, who it appears was involved in the protest action at the quarry. She said that a subcommittee of the association was formed which was called the "Rural Lifestyle Residents Action Group." The deponent says that no members of that subcommittee lived on the Mountain Ash Road. Mr Williamson contends that the effect of that affidavit is to so comprehensively undermine Mr Hannan's version as to warrant the striking out of paragraph 14 of the Defence.
-
Otherwise, in terms of whether paragraph 14 of the Defence should be struck out, I also note that in Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080 at para 23, Adamson J accepted the contested aspects of Mr Hannan's evidence that I have described.
-
The effect of all this is to reveal that there is a contestable issue of fact as to whether or not Mr Williamson was advised prior to the purchase of the quarry proposal. There is no basis for suggesting that it is not open to Elders to plead, in reliance upon Hannan's affidavit, the facts asserted in paragraph 14 of its Defence.
-
An assessment of whether, and if so, to what extent, the affidavit of the person from the Bungonia Progress Association undermines Mr Hannan's assertion as to what he told Mr Williamson is a classic matter of fact to be determined at the trial. On a strike-out application it is simply not possible for the Court to reach any conclusion that Mr Hannan's evidence was either untruthful or unreliable, much less that it was so untruthful and so unreliable that it cannot even be deployed by the defendant.
-
It follows that the Notice of Motion filed 13 October 2016 must be dismissed.
[Parties address on costs]
-
Counsel for Elders seeks that the plaintiff pay the costs of the Motion on an indemnity basis. He points to an email dated 14 October 2016 from the defendant's solicitor to the plaintiff, advising that even though Mr Williamson may seek to argue at trial that the evidence of Mr Hannan should not be accepted, that did not mean there was a problem with the Defence.
-
In the end, I do not think there is any basis to deny the application for indemnity costs. The Notice of Motion was doomed from the outset, because it was based on a fundamental misconception of the role of the Court at an interlocutory stage compared with the trial stage. Despite a number of difficulties affecting Mr Williamson, I think with a moment's reflection he should have been able to appreciate that. I see no reason why the defendant should have to incur costs because an unreasonable Notice of Motion was persisted with.
-
Accordingly, I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the Motion on an indemnity basis.
**********
Amendments
23 May 2017 - Name of Counsel corrected on coversheet
Decision last updated: 23 May 2017
3