Williamson v Rural Bank Limited - [2019] NSWSC 1735

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Williamson v Rural Bank Limited [2019] NSWSC 1735
Hearing dates: 22 August 2019
Date of orders: 06 December 2019
Decision date: 06 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Lindsay J
Decision:
Orders made for summary dismissal of proceedings by which the plaintiff sought to re-litigate a lost cause.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Summary disposal —Dismissal of proceedings — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings – Attempt to re-litigate lost cause
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 NSW
Limitation Act 1969
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW
Cases Cited: Cameron v Cole (1944) 68 CLR 51
Murphy v Boman (2003) 58 NSWLR 51
Williamson v Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd (No. 2) [2018] NSWSC 1986
Texts Cited: -
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Plaintiff: Hugh Francis Arthur Williamson
First Defendant: Rural Bank Ltd
Second Defendant: Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd
Third Defendant: Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd
Fourth Defendant: Elders Ltd
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff: HFA Williamson in person
First & Second Defendants: A Avery-Williams
Third & Fourth Defendants: DAC Robertson
Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Self-represented
First & Second Defendants: Turks Legal
Third & Fourth Defendants: Cowell Clark

File Number(s): 2018/00379388

Judgment

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court for determination are three notices of motion which call for consideration whether the principal proceedings should be determined summarily and, if not, the terms upon which they might be permitted to continue.

THE DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS

Two of the three notices of motion were filed on 20 March 2019 by parties which, for convenience, are characterised as defendants. Each motion seeks an order (pursuant to rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 NSW) for the summary dismissal of the principal proceedings or, alternatively, an order (pursuant to rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005) for the plaintiff’s statement of claim to be struck out.
One of those notices of motion has been filed by Rural Bank Ltd and Bendigo & Adelaide Bank Ltd, together described as “the Banks”. The other notice of motion was filed by Elders Rural Services Australia Ltd and Elders Ltd, together described as “the Elders Parties”.
It is convenient to describe the defendants as “the Banks” and “the Elders Parties” because the designations they have been given by the plaintiff in various documents lack consistency.
Subject to one qualification, the form of statement of claim sought to be propounded by the plaintiff (a former solicitor) on the hearing of the motions before the Court (and sought by the Banks and the Elders Parties to be struck out) is a document marked for identification as MFI P2. The qualification is that, as formally noted during the hearing of the motions, the plaintiff has expressly abandoned any claim for relief in the principal proceedings against the solicitors respectively known as “Turks Legal” and “Cowell Clarke” (respectively, the solicitors for the Banks and the Elders Parties) or Mr DAC Robertson, counsel for the Elders Parties: Transcript pages 26-28.
Although MFI P2 names the Elders Parties as defendants, no…

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 Rural Bank Limited 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] NSWSC 1735
Decision Date: 06 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Williamson v Rural Bank Limited involved the plaintiff, Williamson, challenging the Rural Bank Limited over an alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in a loan agreement. Williamson sought damages for the alleged breaches. The dispute was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious and whether they represented an attempt to re-litigate a matter already decided.

The court was required to determine whether Williamson's claims were without merit and whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of the legal process. The Rural Bank argued that the plaintiff's claims had been previously dismissed in a related case, and therefore, this was an attempt to re-litigate a lost cause. The court examined the merits of the claims and the nature of the proceedings to decide whether they should be summarily dismissed.

The Supreme Court found that the proceedings were indeed frivolous and vexatious. It held that the claims were without any real prospect of success, as they were based on the same facts and issues that had already been adjudicated in a previous case. The court considered that allowing the proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of the legal process. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings and made no orders for costs.

Orders