Williamson v Elders Rural Services - [2020] NSWSC 933

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Elders Rural Services & ors [2020] NSWSC 933
Hearing dates: 21 July 2020
Date of orders: 21 July 2020
Decision date: 21 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
(1) Question 1, namely, whether the plaintiff was a person under legal incapacity for the purposes of Division 4 of Part 7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), or in any other sense, during the period 27-29 November 2017, or any other time prior to 30 June 2018 (and if so when), is answered “No”;
(2)   The plaintiff’s application for leave to file the further amended statement of claim in the form of MFI 1 before me is refused.
(3)   The plaintiff’s claim against all four defendants is dismissed.
(4)   The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the first, second, third and fourth defendants as agreed or assessed.
(5) I list the defendants’ applications for relief pursuant to s 8 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) for directions before the Registrar on Friday, 24 July 2020 at 9.30am.

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where plaintiff commenced proceedings to set aside judgment on the basis of legal incapacity – Whether plaintiff a person under legal incapacity – Where plaintiff conceded that he was not under legal incapacity – No proper basis for the continuation of proceedings – Proceedings dismissed
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Notice of motion – Application for leave to further amend statement of claim – Where further amended statement of claim did not properly plead a cause of action – Where plaintiff bound by issue estoppel – Application refused – Proceedings dismissed
COSTS – Dismissal of notice of motion – Usual costs order made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Williamson v Bendigo and Adelaide Bank [2020] NSWSC 934
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Limited (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 137
Williamson v Elders Ltd and ors [2016] NSWSC 450

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson – Plaintiff
Elders Rural Services Australia Limited – First defendant
Rural Bank Ltd – Second defendant
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd – Third defendant
Elders Ltd – Fourth defendant
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff – Self represented
D Robertson – First and fourth defendants
A Avery-Williams – Second and third defendants
Solicitors:
Cowell Clarke – First and fourth defendants Turks Legal – Second and third defendants

File Number(s): 2019/286765
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment – ex tempore (revised)

In these proceedings there are a series of issues for determination.
To begin with, the Court made orders on 23 April 2020 pursuant to s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), and r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), that two questions be determined as preliminary questions in the proceedings separate to all other issues. Those…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Williamson v Elders Rural Services and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 933
Decision Date: 21 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Williamson, brought proceedings against Elders Rural Services to set aside a judgment on the basis that he was a person under legal incapacity. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The defendant contested the plaintiff's claim on the basis that the plaintiff was not under legal incapacity. During the proceedings, the plaintiff conceded that he was not under legal incapacity, and subsequently, the court found that there was no proper basis for the continuation of the proceedings. Consequently, the proceedings were dismissed.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was a person under legal incapacity and if there was a proper basis for the continuation of the proceedings. The court also had to assess whether the plaintiff was bound by issue estoppel and whether the further amended statement of claim properly pleaded a cause of action. Ultimately, the court found that the plaintiff was not under legal incapacity, and there was no proper basis for the continuation of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff was bound by issue estoppel, and the further amended statement of claim did not properly plead a cause of action.

The court found that the plaintiff's concession that he was not under legal incapacity meant that there was no proper basis for the continuation of the proceedings. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff was bound by issue estoppel, and the further amended statement of claim did not properly plead a cause of action. As a result, the application for leave to further amend the statement of claim was refused, and the proceedings were dismissed. The court also made an order for the usual costs to be paid by the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the proceedings and ordered the plaintiff to pay the usual costs. The dismissal of the notice of motion resulted in the usual costs order being made. The court found that the plaintiff's concession that he was not under legal incapacity meant that there was no proper basis for the continuation of the proceedings. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff was bound by issue estoppel, and the further amended statement of claim did not properly plead a cause of action. As a result, the application for leave to further amend the statement of claim was refused, and the proceedings were dismissed.

Orders