Wray v Grand Motors Prestige Pty Ltd

[2012] QDC 59

[2012] QDC 59

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 580 of 2010

ROBERT JAMES BRENDEN WRAY

Plaintiff

and

GRAND MOTORS PRESTIGE PTY LTD

and

ADCO CONSTRUCTIONS PTY LTD

and

APF BRISBANE PTY LTD

and

DAVIS LANGDON PTY LTD

and

MGR PTY LTD

and

OLDFIELD KNOTT ARCHITECTS PTY LTD

First Defendant

Second Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

SOUTHPORT

..DATE 10/04/2012

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 194

Leave to second defendant to issue a third party notice against former sixth defendant - plaintiff's claim against sixth defendant previously dismissed
HIS HONOUR:  The court, effectively by consent, makes an order:
1 that pursuant to rule 194 (2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure
Rules 1999 the second defendant be granted leave to file a
third party claim and statement of claim against the sixth
defendant and that the costs of and incidental to the
application be the parties’ costs in the cause."

The plaintiff instituted this proceeding against six
defendants arising out of his suffering injury in the course
of his employment when a sliding gate came out of its tracks
and fell on him.  The sixth defendant named was a firm of
architects.

Judge McGinness made an order which appears to have been made
with the consent of all parties on the 6th of February 2012
that the plaintiff's claim against the sixth defendant, being
Oldfield Knott Architects Pty Ltd, be dismissed.

If it matters, on the 6th of March 2012 the registrar made an
order pursuant to Rule 171 of the UCPR that the plaintiff's
claim against the fifth defendant be struck out.

It is necessary to get the sixth defendant back in the
proceeding, so that, notwithstanding that the plaintiff may
not wish to proceed against it, the second defendant may
pursue its third party claim.

Miss Gindi, appearing for Adco Constructions Pty Ltd, the second defendant, has handed up - and I mark Exhibit 1 - a bundle of
documents each entitled "Request for consent order of registrar"
which all relate to an order in terms indistinguishable from
those which I have indicated above as constituting the court's
order.  The various requests, in one or other of them, bear
signatures of the lawyers for the plaintiff and the first to
fourth defendants inclusive, there are no other parties for the moment.

The court has the option under Rule 194 (3) to order that the
application be served on other parties, but that is pointless
in the circumstances.

Ordinary third party practice does not require the intended
third party to be given notice of a claim that is desired to
be pursued against it.

So, order as per initialled draft.

------