Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd - [2019] NSWCA 137

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 137
Hearing dates: 5 June 2019
Decision date: 13 June 2019
Before: Leeming JA; White JA
Decision:
Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 12 March 2019 is dismissed with costs.

Catchwords: LEAVE TO APPEAL – interlocutory decision to refuse amendment – amendment sought leave to advance claim for misleading and deceptive conduct – proceedings dismissed after trial based on fraudulent misrepresentation only – no challenge to final judgment – issue estoppels flowing from final judgment – leave refused
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140
Limitations Act 1969 (NSW), ss 52, 55
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 82
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.2, 51.6, 51.9, 51.10
Cases Cited: Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 at 531-532; [1939] HCA 23
CEAL Ltd v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 302
Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22
Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Ltd [2016] NSWSC 450
Wardley v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 at 525; [1992] HCA 55
Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson (in person) (Applicant)
Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:

P Horobin (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Cowell Clarke (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/32907
Publication restriction: None
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Citation:

Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Ltd [2016] NSWSC 450

Date of Decision:

22 April 2016

Before:

N Adams J

File Number(s):

2015/226349

Judgment

THE COURT: Mr Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson seeks leave to appeal from the reserved interlocutory decision of the primary judge (N Adams J) given more than 3 years ago, on 22 April 2016, refusing him leave to file a proposed amended statement of claim: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Ltd [2016] NSWSC 450. Mr Williamson represented himself before the primary judge, just as he has appeared for himself in this Court.
Ultimately, the litigation between the parties went to trial on a third further amended statement of claim filed on 2 June 2017. The trial was heard over 3 days, with Mr Williamson representing himself, in the Common Law Division before Johnson J. Judgment was delivered on 19 December 2018: Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986. All of Mr Williamson’s claims were dismissed.
In order to deal with the substance of the application for leave to appeal, as well as to explain the competing submissions as to the need for an extension of time, it will be necessary to summarise the factual background, the history of the litigation at first instance, and the findings made in 2018 following the trial, as well as the reasons of the primary judge.

Factual and procedural background

Mr Williamson purchased…

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 Australia Ltd 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: [2019] NSWCA 137
Decision Date: 13 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Williamson (the appellant) sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the primary judge that refused leave to amend his statement of claim. The proposed amendment sought to introduce a claim for misleading and deceptive conduct under the *Australian Consumer Law*, in addition to the existing claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. The proceedings had already been dismissed by the primary judge at trial based solely on the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, and no appeal had been lodged against that final judgment.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in refusing leave to amend the statement of claim. This required the court to consider the principles governing the amendment of pleadings, particularly in circumstances where a final judgment had already been entered and no appeal against that judgment had been pursued. The court also had to determine whether the doctrine of issue estoppel, arising from the final judgment, precluded the appellant from advancing the proposed misleading and deceptive conduct claim.

Leeming and White JJA reasoned that the final judgment dismissing the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation had not been challenged by way of appeal. Consequently, the findings of fact and conclusions of law in that judgment were binding on the parties. Their Honours held that the proposed claim for misleading and deceptive conduct, as framed by the appellant, would necessarily involve re-litigating issues that had already been determined in the final judgment. Accordingly, the doctrine of issue estoppel applied, preventing the amendment. The court concluded that it would be an abuse of process to allow the amendment, and therefore the primary judge had not erred in refusing leave.

The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent, Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd.

Orders

Orders of the court

Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 12 March 2019 is dismissed with costs.

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:	Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd [2019] NSWCA 137
Hearing dates:	5 June 2019
Decision date:	13 June 2019
Before:	Leeming JA; White JA
Decision:	Summons seeking leave to appeal filed 12 March 2019 is dismissed with costs.
Catchwords:	LEAVE TO APPEAL – interlocutory decision to refuse amendment – amendment sought leave to advance claim for misleading and deceptive conduct – proceedings dismissed after trial based on fraudulent misrepresentation only – no challenge to final judgment – issue estoppels flowing from final judgment – leave refused
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140 Limitations Act 1969 (NSW), ss 52, 55 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 82 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.2, 51.6, 51.9, 51.10
Cases Cited:	Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 at 531-532; [1939] HCA 23 CEAL Ltd v Minister for Planning [2007] NSWLEC 302 Gerlach v Clifton Bricks Pty Ltd (2002) 209 CLR 478; [2002] HCA 22 Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Ltd [2016] NSWSC 450 Wardley v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514 at 525; [1992] HCA 55 Williamson v Carneys Lawyers [2015] NSWSC 1080 Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson (in person) (Applicant) Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: P Horobin (Respondent) Solicitors: Cowell Clarke (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2019/32907
Publication restriction:	None
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Supreme Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson v Elders Ltd [2016] NSWSC 450 Date of Decision: 22 April 2016 Before: N Adams J File Number(s): 2015/226349