Wright v Pagett

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Wright v Pagett & Ors [2013] QDC 126

PARTIES:

KERRY GEORGE WRIGHT

(plaintiff)

v

GEOFFREY PAGETT

(first defendant)

and

YAHOO!7 PTY LTD

(second defendant)

and

YAHOO! INC

(third defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Gladstone Registry D3/13

DIVISION:

Applications

PROCEEDING:

Claim

ORIGINATING COURT:

Gladstone District Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 June 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Gladstone

HEARING DATE:

27 May 2013

JUDGE:

Smith DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for default judgment

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 rules 8, 105, 106, 120, 123, 282, 284, 288, 461 and 982

Crane Distribution Ltd v Brown [2011] QSC 90

COUNSEL:

Mr Wright self represented

No appearance for the defendants

SOLICITORS:

No appearance

Introduction

1. This is an application by the plaintiff for default judgment against the first defendant, Geoffrey Pagett.

1. UCPR r 284 provides:

“(1)This rule applies if the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant in default is for unliquidated damages, with or without another claim.

(2)The plaintiff may file a request for judgment conditional on the assessment of damages by the court under chapter 13, part 8, and for costs.

(3)If the plaintiff files a request for judgment under subrule (2), the court, as constituted by a registrar, may give judgment.”

1. I am informed that the registrar has declined to order default judgment in this case.

1. As I understand the matter has been referred to me under r 982.

1. Alternatively the application by the plaintiff is under r 288 which provides:

“Judgment by default – other claims

(1)This rule applies if a defendant is in default and the plaintiff is not entitled to apply for judgment under rule 283, 284, 285 or 286.

(2)The plaintiff may apply to the court for a judgment.

(3)On the application, the court may give the judgment it considers is justified on the pleadings even if the judgment was not claimed.”

Background

1. I now turn to the circumstances of this case.

1. The plaintiff, Mr Wright, has issued proceedings claiming compensation in the sum of $200,000 and aggravated compensatory damages of $250,000 against the defendants.  In the Claim it is alleged that the defendants “caused psychological, physical and financial harm to the plaintiff by:

(a)        intentional infliction of emotional distress;

(b)        negligence as per the Civil Liability Act 2003;

(c)        misleading conduct as per the Fair Trading Act 1999 (Qld);

(d)        misleading conduct as per the Customer and Consumer Act 2010;

(e)        invasion of privacy.”

1. As to point (d) of the Claim, I assume the plaintiff is referring to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). No Act exists which is entitled “the Customer and Consumer Act”.

1. The plaintiff has also filed a lengthy Statement of Claim.  In summary, he alleges that the first defendant published by way of email and/or by way of comment various matters concerning him and his daughter over the internet. 

1. The pleading is voluminous and may not be in a proper form as required by the Rules (r 149).  Additionally, the plaintiff appears to be suing in large part…