Wood v Laverty

Case [2003] QSC 405

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wood & Anor v Laverty & Ors [2003] QSC 405

PARTIES:

RONALD IAN WOOD and SUZANNE KAY WOOD
(first plaintiffs)
KALGER PTY LTD
ACN 062 256 964
(second plaintiff)
v
KENNETH JOHN LAVERTY
(first defendant)
RICHARD PATRICK ROCHE
(second defendant)
MICHAEL JOHN KELLY
(third defendant)
PAUL EDWIN O’KEEFFE
(fourth defendant)
JOHN SHAW MONCRIEFF
(fifth defendant)
JANENE LORNA ATFIELD
(sixth defendant)

FILE NO:

10692 of 1999

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2003

JUDGE:

Muir J

ORDERS:

(1)      That paragraph 21 of the further amended statement of claim filed 27 August 2003 and paragraph 2 of the prayer for relief be struck out

(2)      That the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis be the plaintiffs’ costs in the cause

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PRACTICE UNDER RULES OF COURT – Pleading – Statement of Claim – where the defendants applied pursuant to UCPR 171 to strike out various parts of a pleading which are said to be statute barred, have no real prospect of success or not be legally sustainable – where it was argued in the alternative that there should be summary judgment for the defendants – consideration of the principles of undue influence, unconscionable conduct and fiduciary duties – whether in the circumstances the pleadings ought be struck out or there should be summary judgment for the defendants

Limitation of Actions Act (Qld) 1974
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (Qld) 1999, r 171, r 293(2)

Bester v Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd [1970] 3 NSWR 30
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Bradley West Clarke List v Keeman (1998) ANZ Conv R 77

Breen v Williams (1996) 186 CLR 71
Carindale Country Club Estate Pty Ltd v Astill (1993) 42 FCR 307
Christensen v Scott (1996) 1 NZLR 273

Citicorp Australia Ltd v O’Brien (1996) 40 NSWLR 398
Clark Boyce v Mouat [1994] 1 AC 428
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Credit Lyonnaise Bank Nederland NV v Burch [1997] 1 All ER 144
Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 371

Daniels v Anderson (1995) 37 NSWLR 438

Foss v Harbottle (1843) 2 Hare 461; 67 ER 189

Garofoli v Khom & Raimondi (1989) 77 CBR 84

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Gould & Birbeck & Bacon v Mt Oxide Mines (in liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490
Gould v Vaggelas (1985) 157 CLR 215
Harris v Milfull (2002) 43 ACSR 542.

Hawkins v Clayton (1988) 164 CLR 539
Huguenin v Buseby (1807) 14 Ves 273
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR 113
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
Mahoney v Purnell [1996] 3 All ER 61
Mallesons Stephen Jaques v KPMG Peat Marwick (1990) 4 WAR 357
New Zealand…

Continue reading Wood v Laverty

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wood v Laverty [2003] QSC 405
Case
[2003] QSC 405
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wood v Laverty involved a legal dispute heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiffs, represented by Wood, filed a statement of claim against the defendants, represented by Laverty. The plaintiffs sought to establish claims based on alleged undue influence, unconscionable conduct, and breach of fiduciary duties. The defendants moved to strike out specific parts of the plaintiffs' pleadings on the grounds that they were statute-barred, had no real prospect of success, and were not legally sustainable. Alternatively, the defendants applied for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' claims were untenable.

The court examined the principles of undue influence, unconscionable conduct, and fiduciary duties to determine whether the pleadings should be struck out or if summary judgment should be granted in favour of the defendants. The court considered the statutory limitations and the merits of the claims presented. The plaintiffs' claims regarding undue influence and unconscionable conduct were scrutinized to ensure they were not time-barred and had a reasonable chance of success. The court also evaluated whether the fiduciary duties alleged were valid and relevant to the case.

The court ruled that certain parts of the pleadings should be struck out due to being statute-barred. Specifically, paragraph 21 of the further amended statement of claim and paragraph 2 of the prayer for relief were deemed to be outside the permissible timeframe. Consequently, these parts were struck out from the plaintiffs' statement of claim. The court also ordered that the plaintiffs' costs of and incidental to the application be assessed on the standard basis and borne by the plaintiffs.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) That paragraph 21 of the further amended statement of claim filed 27 August 2003 and paragraph 2 of the prayer for relief be struck out

(2) That the plaintiffs’ costs of and incidental to the application to be assessed on the standard basis be the plaintiffs’ costs in the cause

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.