civil litigation law exam notes - super summary

72
1 Civil Litigation exam notes Table of Contents GENERAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 PROCEDURAL VS SUBSTANTIVE LAW:JOHN PFEIFFER V ROGERSON (1997) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Substantive law = legal rights, duties, powers and liabilities.......................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Procedural law = law that governs the method by which rights are sought to be enforced .......................................................................................................................... 17 Procedural law is not less important than substantive law: Bathurst CJ NSWSC ........................................................................................................................................... 17 CASE MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Overriding purpose is that all civil matters must facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute: s 56 CPA ....................................................... 17 Just: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 The court must act in accordance with the dictates of justice: s 58 CPA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 However, justice is expressed not only by the court’s acknowledgement of the rights of the parties to the proceedings, but also considering the interests of other litigants and the public: Aon v ANU (2009). .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Quick: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 The efficient disposal of the business of the court: s 57 CPA............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Practice and procedure being implemented with the object of eliminating any lapse of time: s 59 CPA ........................................................................................................................................................ 18 Cheap: .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 s 56 CPA requires all litigants in civil proceedings in NSWSC to act as model litigants: Priest v NSW (2007) ................................................................................................. 18 Rulings: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 This all must be assessed in reference to some form of test of proportionality ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 The cost to the parties is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subjectmatter in dispute: s 60 CPA ........................................................................................................................... 18 The concept of proportionality of costs in s 60 can influence the demands that the court places on parties: e.g. Zanella v Madden (2007) ....................................................................................... 18 The concept of proportionality of costs in s 60 can also effect litigation in other ways: e.g. Vella v ANZ (2008) ................................................................................................................................... 19 Rules generally: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules operate in conjunction with CPA, they are affirmed by the CPA: s 10 CPA .......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Where rules are inconsistent, uniform rules will prevail over any local rules: s 11 CPA................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 P’s must not commence proceedings unless they are ready to comply with the rules: DC PN 1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 In the Supreme Court, a general case management document must be filed with originating process: SC PN 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Court powers in regards to noncompliance with case management principles: s 61 CPA ............................................................................................................................ 19 Court has power to make any direction it sees fit for speedy determination of issues between parties: subs 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 19 Noncompliance may result in the court dismissing or striking out proceedings, or may enter judgement or costs order as the court sees appropriate: subs 3...................................................................... 19 This only occurs where it is absolutely necessary: see: McCabe for criteria..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 r 12.7 UCPR allows the court to entirely dismiss the proceedings based on lack of due dispatch by either party: Phornpisutikul v Mileto (2006) ................................................................................... 19 PRACTICE NOTES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Creation of PNs: s 15 CPA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 PNs are subject to UCPR......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 EMBARRASSING ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Upload: jessc18

Post on 02-Jan-2016

617 views

Category:

Documents


3 download

DESCRIPTION

Civil litigation law exam notes - from UTS 2013Theses are super summary and not the full notes, but if you already know your stuff, this will be pretty much all you need to bring in as you only need prompts. This helps you put your mind in the right place during the exam.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

1  

Civil  Litigation  exam  notes  

Table  of  Contents  GENERAL  PRINCIPLES  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  17  

PROCEDURAL  VS  SUBSTANTIVE  LAW:  JOHN  PFEIFFER  V  ROGERSON  (1997)  .......................................................................................................................................................................  17  Substantive  law  =  legal  rights,  duties,  powers  and  liabilities  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  17  Procedural  law  =  law  that  governs  the  method  by  which  rights  are  sought  to  be  enforced  ..........................................................................................................................  17  Procedural  law  is  not  less  important  than  substantive  law:  Bathurst  CJ  NSWSC  ...........................................................................................................................................  17  

CASE  MANAGEMENT  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  17  Overriding  purpose  is  that  all  civil  matters  must  facilitate  the  just,  quick  and  cheap  resolution  of  the  real  issues  in  dispute:  s  56  CPA  .......................................................  17  

Just:  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  The  court  must  act  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  justice:  s  58  CPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  

However,  justice  is  expressed  not  only  by  the  court’s  acknowledgement  of  the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the  proceedings,  but  also  considering  the  interests  of  other  litigants  and  the  public:  Aon  v  ANU  (2009).  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  

Quick:  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  The  efficient  disposal  of  the  business  of  the  court:  s  57  CPA  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  Practice  and  procedure  being  implemented  with  the  object  of  eliminating  any  lapse  of  time:  s  59  CPA  ........................................................................................................................................................  18  

Cheap:  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  s  56  CPA  requires  all  litigants  in  civil  proceedings  in  NSWSC  to  act  as  model  litigants:  Priest  v  NSW  (2007)  .................................................................................................  18  

Rulings:  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  18  This  all  must  be  assessed  in  reference  to  some  form  of  test  of  proportionality  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................  18  

The  cost  to  the  parties  is  proportionate  to  the  importance  and  complexity  of  the  subject-­‐matter  in  dispute:  s  60  CPA  ...........................................................................................................................  18  The  concept  of  proportionality  of  costs  in  s  60  can  influence  the  demands  that  the  court  places  on  parties:  e.g.  Zanella  v  Madden  (2007)  .......................................................................................  18  The  concept  of  proportionality  of  costs  in  s  60  can  also  effect  litigation  in  other  ways:  e.g.  Vella  v  ANZ  (2008)  ...................................................................................................................................  19  

Rules  generally:  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  19  Uniform  Civil  Procedure  Rules  operate  in  conjunction  with  CPA,  they  are  affirmed  by  the  CPA:  s  10  CPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................  19  

Where  rules  are  inconsistent,  uniform  rules  will  prevail  over  any  local  rules:  s  11  CPA  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  19  P’s  must  not  commence  proceedings  unless  they  are  ready  to  comply  with  the  rules:  DC  PN  1  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  19  In  the  Supreme  Court,  a  general  case  management  document  must  be  filed  with  originating  process:  SC  PN  5  .................................................................................................................................................  19  

Court  powers  in  regards  to  non-­‐compliance  with  case  management  principles:  s  61  CPA  ............................................................................................................................  19  Court  has  power  to  make  any  direction  it  sees  fit  for  speedy  determination  of  issues  between  parties:  subs  1  .................................................................................................................................................  19  Non-­‐compliance  may  result  in  the  court  dismissing  or  striking  out  proceedings,  or  may  enter  judgement  or  costs  order  as  the  court  sees  appropriate:  subs  3  ......................................................................  19  

This  only  occurs  where  it  is  absolutely  necessary:  see:  McCabe  for  criteria  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................  19  r  12.7  UCPR  allows  the  court  to  entirely  dismiss  the  proceedings  based  on  lack  of  due  dispatch  by  either  party:  Phornpisutikul  v  Mileto  (2006)  ...................................................................................  19  

PRACTICE  NOTES  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  Creation  of  PNs:  s  15  CPA  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  

PNs  are  subject  to  UCPR  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  EMBARRASSING  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  

Page 2: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

2  

Embarrassing  defined:  Priest  v  NSW  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  Embarrassing  further  defined:  Meckiff  v  Simpson  (1968)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................  20  

ABUSE  OF  PROCESS  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  20  All  courts  have  inherent  powers  necessary  to  enable  it  to  act  effectively,  to  control  its  own  proceedings  and  prevent  abuse  of  process:  Jago  v  District  Court  of  NSW  (1989)  (for  Supreme  Court),  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  (for  lower  courts)  .......................................................................................................................................................  20  To  start  proceedings  with  no  merit  whatsoever  is  an  abuse  of  process:  White  industries  v  Flower  &  Hart  (1998)  ........................................................................................  20  Litigation  funding  is  not  an  abuse  of  process  or  contrary  to  public  policy:  Campbell’s  Cash  and  Carry  v  Fostif  (2006)  per  Gummow,  Hayne  and  Crennan  JJ  ......................  20  

PRIVILEGE  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  Dominant  purpose  test:  Esso  (1999)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  

AFFIDAVITS  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  Evidence  set  out  in  affidavits  are  an  exception  to  s  32  Evidence  Act:  Lindsay-­‐Owen  v  Lake  (2000)  per  Hodgson  CJ  ......................................................................................  21  Contrary  to  s  59  Evidence  Act,  hearsay  evidence  is  allowed  in  interlocutory  proceedings:  s  75  Evidence  Act  ...............................................................................................  21  All  evidence  must  be  based  on  knowledge,  information  and  belief:  s  172  EA  ................................................................................................................................................  21  Notice  of  affidavits  must  be  served  to  other  parties:  s  173  EA  .......................................................................................................................................................................  21  

Party  A  who  tenders  affidavits  must  call  person  who  made  evidence  if  Party  B  requests,  but  doesn’t  have  to  unless  requested:  r  35.2  UCPR  .................................................................................................  21  Where  deponent  has  died,  hearsay  rule  (s  59  EA)  does  not  apply  and  affidavit  may  contain  hearsay  evidence  –  obvious  this  also  means  that  the  person  also  cannot  be  called  for  cross  examination:  ss  63  and  67  Evidence  Act  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  

Irregularity  does  not  invalidate  affidavit:  r  35.1  UCPR  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  If  alteration  is  made  to  a  filed  affidavit,  it  cannot  be  used  unless  person  who  swore  affidavit  initials  all  changes:  r  35.5  UCPR  ..................................................................  21  

However,  best  practice  is  to  get  a  new  one  re-­‐sworn  if  the  affidavit  has  not  been  filed  as  yet,  or  re-­‐submit  a  new  one  and  withdraw  the  old  one  .....................................................................................  21  Ethics  around  affidavits  –  see:  ethics  notes  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................  21  

PRE-­‐LITIGATION  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  22  ALTERNATE  DISPUTE  RESOLUTION  (ADR)  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  22  

Case  management  requirements  in  Federal  Courts:  Civil  Dispute  Resolution  Act  2011  (Cth)  .........................................................................................................................  22  Pros  and  cons  of  ADR  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  22  

DEFINITIONAL  STAGE  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  23  ETHICAL  CONSTRAINTS  ON  LAWYERS  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  23  

There  is  an  ethical  requirement  on  lawyers  to  be  timely  and  efficient  in  their  contact  of  litigation:  rr  A.15-­‐A.15B,  Advocacy  Rules  in  the  Revised  Processional  Conduct  and  Practice  Rules  1995  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  23  There  must  be  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s  345  LPA  ............................................................................................................................................................................  23  

Certificate  asserting  the  reasonable  prospects  of  success  must  be  signed  by  solicitor:  s  347  LPA  .......................................................................................................................................................................  23  Reasonable  prospects  of  success  is  defined  by  the  basis  of  provable  facts  and  a  reasonably  arguable  view  of  the  law  .................................................................................................................................  23  

For  P,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  prospect  of  damages  being  recovered  on  the  claim:  s  345(1)  LPA  .......................................................................................................................................................  23  For  D,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  prospect  of  the  defence  defeating  the  claim  or  leading  to  a  reduction  in  the  damages  recovered  on  the  claim:  s  345(4)  LPA  ..........................................................  23  

To  start  proceedings  with  no  merit  whatsoever  is  an  abuse  of  process:  White  industries  v  Flower  &  Hart  (1998)  ..............................................................................................................................................  23  Must  facilitate  proceedings  to  be  just,  quick  and  cheap:  s  56  CPA  .................................................................................................................................................................  23  

Non-­‐compliance  may  result  in  costs  orders  against  lawyers:  s  99  CPA  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................  23  

Page 3: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

3  

COMMENCING  PROCEEDINGS  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  24  WHO  ARE  THE  PARTIES?  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  25  

A  “person  under  legal  incapacity”  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................  25  A  person  under  a  legal  incapacity  may  not  commence  or  carry  on  proceedings  except  by  his  or  her  tutor:  r  7.14(1)  UCPR  ...............................................................................................................................  25  

Further,  unless  the  court  orders  otherwise,  the  tutor  of  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  may  not  commence  or  carry  on  proceedings  except  by  a  solicitor:  r  7.14(2)  UCPR  .............................................  25  “Person  under  legal  incapacity”  defined  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  25  

Any  person  (other  than  a  corporation)  is  eligible  to  be  the  tutor  of  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  other  than  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(a)),  a  judicial  officer  or  registrar  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(b)),  or  a  person  who  has  interest  in  the  proceedings  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(c))  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................  25  Documents  required  to  validly  appoint  a  tutor  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  25  

Standing?  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  25  Also  consider:  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  

Are  legal  entities  correct?  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  Correct  defendant?  Ensure  you  are  suing  the  correct  D  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  

Preliminary  discovery  –  it  must  occur  in  the  initial  process:  Pt  5  UCPR  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  Discovery  for  prospective  D’s  identity  and  whereabouts  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  

The  court  may  make  either  or  both  of  the  following  orders  against  other  person  in  relation  to  discovery  to  ascertain  this  ...........................................................................................................  26  However,  the  court  will  only  have  the  power  to  make  such  an  order  where  an  applicant  has  made  “reasonable  enquiries”  and  is  unable  to  ascertain  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  a  person  needed  for  the  purpose  of  commencing  proceedings  against  them  (UCPR,  r  5.2(1)(a))  ....................................................................................................................................................................  26  

Where  applicant  makes  argument  and  satisfies  the  court  that  to  make  reasonable  inquiries  is  expensive  and  unreasonably  time  consuming,  the  court  may  not  require  the  person  to  have  made  these  inquiries:  RTA  v  Australian  National  Car  Parks  (2007)  ................................................................................................................................................................................................  26  

Application  for  preliminary  discovery  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  An  application  must  be  supported  by  an  affidavit  stating  facts  on  which  applicants  relies  and  specifying  information,  documents  or  things  in  respect  of  which  order  is  sought:  s  6.2(7)(a)  UCPR  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  A  NOM  must  also  be  served  on  each  person  effected  by  proposed  order:  r  18.2  UCPR  ...............................................................................................................................................................  27  

A  summons  (r  6.2(3))  and  affidavit  (r  5.2(7)(b))  must  be  personally  served  on  other  person  ............................................................................................................................................................  27  Notice  must  be  personally  served  where  person  is  not  party  to  proceedings  (r  18.5(a))  or  is  party  to  proceedings  but  not  active  (r  18.5(b))  ...........................................................................  27  

Discovery  to  determine  whether  there  is  sufficient  information  to  commence  proceedings  against  D  .................................................................................................................................................  27  This  application  is  made  by  summons:  r  6.4(1)(c)  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  The  application  must  satisfy  the  court  that  applicant  has  made  “reasonable  inquiries”  –  this  is  a  question  of  fact  which  is  dependent  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case:  Steffen  v  ANZ  (2009)  27  The  application  must  also  satisfy  the  court  that  the  purpose  of  inspecting  documents  is  to  give  applicant  sufficient  information  that  it  “reasonably  needs  to  enable  it  to  decide  whether  to  commence  a  proceeding”:  Alphapharm  v  Eli  Lilly  (1996)  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  Three  situations  where  the  Court  may  order  discovery  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  

Joining  proceedings:  Pt  6,  UCPR  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  27  If  there  are  multiple  D’s,  ensure  there  is  a  cause  of  action  against  EACH  defendant  .......................................................................................................................................................................................  27  

Consider  joinders  if  there  are  overlapping  causes  of  action,  defendants  or  even  plaintiffs  ........................................................................................................................................................................  28  Types  of  joinders  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  

Key  is  based  on  the  relevant  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980)  ..........................................................................................................................................................  28  Meaning  of  transaction  is  not  limited  to  a  contractual  transaction:  Bendir  v  Anson  (1936)  ..................................................................................................................................................................  28  In  dicta  arising  out  of  a  hypothetical  context,  Birtles  v  Cth  (1960)  gave  a  broader  interpretation  of  “transaction”  ..............................................................................................................................  28  This  was  all  reined  in  with  Payne  v  Young  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  

Joining  of  parties:  rr  6.19-­‐6.28  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  Court  powers  to  remove  joinder  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  

Where  parties  are  improperly  or  unneceesarily  joined,  or  where  joinder  is  no  longer  necessary  or  proper,  court  can  remove  the  offending  party:  r  6.29  UCPR  ......................................................  28  

Page 4: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

4  

Where  a  joinder  of  any  kind  is  embarrassing,  inconvenient  or  causes  delay  in  the  proceedings,  the  court  can  separate  and  order  separate  trials  as  the  court  sees  fit  (r  6.22(a)  UCPR)  or  make  another  order  the  court  sees  fit  (r  6.22(a)  UCPR)  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  

Joining  Ps  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  An  application  for  joinder  of  Ps  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  28  Criteria  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  29  

Joinder  must  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980),  r  6.19(1)(b)  UCPR  .......................................................................................................  29  The  trials,  if  considered  separately,  would  result  in  common  questions  of  law  and  fact:  r  6.19(1)(a)  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................  29  

Even  where  these  conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  the  court  has  discretion  to  grant  leave  for  Ps  to  join  in  the  same  proceedings:  r  6.19  UCPR  .......................................................................................  29  For  judicial  discretion,  the  court  should  consider  the  overriding  purpose  of  ss  56-­‐60  CPA:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  v  Air  Transit  International  (2002)  ................................................................................  29  

Once  considered,  they  must  do  a  balancing  exercise  to  weigh  up  advantages  and  disadvantages  to  P  .......................................................................................................................................  29  Consent  must  be  given  before  a  party  is  joined:  r  6.25  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................  29  

Joining  Ds  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  29  An  application  for  joinder  of  Ps  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  29  

Criteria  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  29  Joinder  must  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980),  r  6.19(1)(b)  UCPR  .......................................................................................................  29  

Even  where  these  conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  the  court  has  discretion  to  grant  leave  for  Ds  to  join  in  the  same  proceedings:  r  6.19  UCPR  .......................................................................................  29  For  judicial  discretion,  the  court  should  consider  the  overriding  purpose  of  ss  56-­‐60  CPA:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  v  Air  Transit  International  (2002)  ................................................................................  30  

Once  considered,  they  must  do  a  balancing  exercise  to  weigh  up  advantages  and  disadvantages  to  D  ......................................................................................................................................  30  Consent  must  be  given  before  a  party  is  joined:  r  6.25  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................  30  All  jointly  liable  Ds  must  be  sued  in  the  same  proceedings  and  the  court  can  order  proceedings  be  stayed  until  all  joint  Ds  are  parties:  r  6.21(2)  UCPR  ...................................................................  30  

Even  where  P  is  not  too  sure  which  party  is  liable  to  him,  Ds  can  be  joined  in  the  same  proceedings.  If  the  court  thinks  its  reasonable  that  P  joined  successful  D  because  of  the  accusation  of  unsuccessful  D,  Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  may  be  appropriate  .........................................................................................................................................................................................  30  

Causes  of  action  do  not  have  to  be  the  same  –  they  can  joint,  several  or  in  the  alternative  ..................................................................................................................................................................  30  Retrospective  joinders:  rr  6.19(2)  and  6.24  UCPR  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  30  

Leave  can  be  granted  for  parties  to  join  other  parties  after  proceedings  have  commenced:  r  6.19(2)  .......................................................................................................................................................  30  The  court  may  order  parties  to  be  joined  to  proceedings  if  they  feel  the  party  ought  to  be  joined,  or  it’s  joinder  is  necessary  to  the  determination  of  the  proceedings:  r  6.24  ...................................  30  

This  includes  non-­‐party  who  is  in  possession  of  whole  or  part  of  land  that  is  in  dispute  in  the  proceedings  may  be  added  as  a  D:  r  6.24(2)  .......................................................................................  30  If  the  joinder  is  ordered/granted,  the  date  of  commencement  of  proceedings  for  that  party  is  the  day  in  which  order  is  made:  r  6.28  UCPR  .........................................................................................  30  

Removal  of  joint  parties  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  30  The  court  may  order  a  party  improperly  or  unnecessarily  joined  (r  6.29(a)  UCPR),  or  has  ceased  to  be  proper  or  necessary  to  the  proceedings  (r  6.29(b)  UCPR)  to  be  removed  as  a  party  ................  30  

Joinder  of  causes  of  action:  rr  6.18-­‐6.22  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  Causes  of  action  can  be  joined  as  long  as  one  of  the  following  is  satisfied:  .................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  

Capacity  of  P  and  D  are  within  one  of  r  6.18(1)(a)-­‐(c)  UCPR  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  Court  grants  leave:  r  6.18(1)(d)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  An  application  for  joinder  of  COAs  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  

Class/Representative  actions:  Pt  10  CPA  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  Essential  requirements:  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  31  Representative  actions  may  be  commenced  against  more  than  one  D,  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  each  person  has  a  claim  against  every  D:  s  158(2)  CPA  ..............................................................  31  Applications  must  follow  form  as  outlined  in  PN  SC  Gen  17  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  32  Notice  requirements  also  apply:  ss  175-­‐176  CPA  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  32  

Notices  must  be  accurate  and  not  mislead  group  members:  Courtney  v  Medtel  (2001)  .......................................................................................................................................................................  32  Litigation  funding  is  not  an  abuse  of  process  or  contrary  to  public  policy:  Campbells  Cash  and  Carry  v  Fostif  (2006)  per  Gummow,  Hayne  and  Crennan  JJ  ...................................................................  32  

Page 5: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

5  

INTERLOCUTORY  PROCEEDINGS  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  32  A  judgement  is  interlocutory  where  an  order  determines  final  rights  of  an  matter  pending  between  two  parties:  Anshun  .........................................................................  32  Types  of  interlocutory  orders  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  32  Interlocutory  applications  are  done  by  filing  a  notice  of  motion:  Pt  18  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................................  32  

Notice  must  be  filed  on  each  party  and  be  accompanied  with  an  affidavit:  r  18.1  UCPR  ......................................................................................................................................................................................  32  Generally  NOM  must  be  filed  (r  18.2(1)  UCPR),  but  does  not  need  to  in  the  following  situations  (r  18.2(2)  UCPR)  .............................................................................................................................................  32  

(a)   that  person  consents  to  the  making  of  the  order,  or  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  32  (b)   the  preparation,  filing  or  service  of  the  notice  would  cause  undue  delay  or  other  prejudice  to  the  person  by  whom  the  order  is  sought,  or  ....................................................................................  33  (c)   the  court  dispenses  with  the  requirement  for  such  notice  to  be  filed  or  served,  or  ..............................................................................................................................................................................  33  (d)   under  these  rules  or  the  practice  of  the  court,  the  motion  may  be  made  without  the  prior  filing  or  service  (as  the  case  may  be)  of  notice  of  motion.  .....................................................................  33  

NOM  must  be  served  at  least  3  days  before  date  fixed  for  motion:  r  18.4  UCPR  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................  33  NOM  must  be  personally  served  on  those  who  have  not  entered  an  appearance:  r  18.5  UCPR  ..........................................................................................................................................................................  33  Where  NOM  has  been  correctly  served,  matter  may  be  dealt  with  in  either  party’s  absence:  r  18.7  UCPR  .........................................................................................................................................................  33  Directions  as  to  a  result  of  an  interlocutory  hearing  is  made  under  r  18.9  UCPR  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................  33  N.B.  in  regards  to  hearsay  evidence,  contrary  to  s  59  Evidence  Act,  hearsay  evidence  is  allowed  in  interlocutory  proceedings:  s  75  Evidence  Act  ...........................................................................................  33  

Interim  preservation  orders  –  may  be  used  before  or  after  action  is  commenced  .........................................................................................................................................  33  Injunctive  relief:  r  25.2(1)(c)  UCPR  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  33  

To  do  so,  applicant  must  show  a  “PF  case”  and  that  “balance  of  convenience”  favours  the  order  being  made:  Apple  v  Samsung  (2011)  .....................................................................................................  33  Federal  Court  has  power  to  make  such  injunctions  as  the  court  “has  power,  in  relation  to  matters  in  which  it  has  jurisdiction,  to  make  orders  of  such  kinds…  that  the  Court  thinks  appropriate”:  s  23  Federal  Court  Act  1976  (Cth)  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  33  Supreme  Court  has  power  to  do  so  at  any  stage  of  proceedings  where  it  is  just  or  convenient  to  do  so  by  inherent  jurisdiction  and  s  66(4)  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  (NSW)  ...........................................  33  District  Court  has  limited  power  to  grant  temporary  injunctions  for  a  period  not  exceeding  14  days  to  enable  Supreme  Court  proceedings  to  be  commenced:  s  141  District  Court  Act  1973  (NSW)  ......  34  For  an  interlocutory  injunction  to  succeed,  applicant  needs  to  satisfy  the  court  that  he  has  a  PF  case,  as  well  as  satisfying  the  court  that  the  inconvenience  or  injury  experienced  by  applicant  outweighs  the  inconvenience  or  injury  to  the  other  party  if  injuction  were  granted:  Beecham  v  Bristol  (1968)  .............................................................................................................................................  34  

PF  case  means  that  application  can  show  a  sufficient  likelihood  of  success  to  justify  the  circumstances,  rather  than  application  must  show  it  is  more  probably  than  not  that,  at  trial,  they  will  succeed:  ACB  v  O’Neill  (2006)  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  34  

Parties  seeking  injunctions  are  usually  required  to  give  an  undertaking  as  to  damages:  r  25.8  UCPR  .............................................................................................................................................................  34  However,  the  court  cannot  compel  the  giving  of  an  undertaking,  but  it  may  refuse  application  for  interlocutory  relief  unless  undertaking  is  offered:  Tucker  v  New  Brunswick  (1890)s  .....................  34  

Orders  for  preservation  of  property:  r  25.3  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  34  Orders  for  disposal  of  perishable  property:  r  25.4  UCPR  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  34  Orders  for  interim  distribution  of  property  or  income  surplus  to  the  subject  matter  of  proceedings:  rr  25.5-­‐25.6  UCPR  ...................................................................................................................................  34  Orders  for  payment  of  shares  in  a  fund  before  all  interested  parties  are  determined:  r  25.7  UCPR  ....................................................................................................................................................................  34  Freezing  orders  (Mareva  injunctions):  r  25.11  and  25.14  UCPR  and  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  .............................................................................................................................................................................  34  

For  lower  courts,  this  power  comes  from  the  court’s  inherent  equitable  jurisdiction:  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  ............................................................................................................................................  34  An  application  should  comply  with  PN  SC  Gen  14  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  

Search  orders  (Anton  Piller  orders):  r  25.19  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  Anton  Piller  orders  are  obtained  on  an  ex  parte  basis  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  Elements  to  be  satisfied  to  succeed  in  obtaining  an  Anton  Piller  order:  Austress  Freyssinet  v  Joesph  (2006)  .................................................................................................................................................  35  An  application  should  comply  with  PN  SC  Gen  13  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  

Does  your  client  understand  the  costs  and  implications  of  commencing  proceedings?  .................................................................................................................................  35  Is  it  worth  suing  the  other  party?  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  Limitation  periods  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  

Purpose  of  imposing  limitation  periods  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  35  

Page 6: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

6  

Four  broad  rationales  for  limitation  periods:  Brisbane  South  Regional  Health  v  Taylor  (1996)  per  HcMugh  J  ................................................................................................................................................  35  Limitations  are  substantive  law:  John  Pfeiffer  v  Rogerson  (2000)  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  36  Limitation  periods:  Limitation  Act  1969  (NSW)  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  36  Limitation  period  can  be  suspended  or  postponed  where  the  has  been  fraud  or  mistake:  ss  55  and  56  Limitation  Act  1969  (NSW)  ..................................................................................................................  36  Limitation  period  for  minors  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  36  

Generally,  limitation  periods  for  minors  are  suspended  until  majority  attained:  s  52  Limitation  Act  1969  .....................................................................................................................................................  36  However,  limitation  periods  for  personal  injury  matters  may  not  always  be  suspended  ................................................................................................................................................................................  36  

How  to  determine  when  COA  accrues  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  What  is  the  appropriate  jurisdiction?  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  

Determining  jurisdiction  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  Service  defines  jurisdiction  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  Jurisdiction  has  impact  on  how  a  case  is  treated  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  

Consider  what  the  client  wants  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  37  Types  of  jurisdiction  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  

Original  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  Federal  –  all  matters  arising  under  the  Constitution  or  involving  its  interpretation  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  38  Supreme  Court  –  anything  which  may  be  necessary  to  do  justice  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  

Appellate  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  High  Court  –  appeals  from  any  judgements,  degrees,  orders  and  sentences  of  any  federal  court,  any  court  exercising  federal  jurisdiction  or  Supreme  Court  of  any  state  ...........................................  38  Federal  and  State  Courts  –  appellate  powers  governed  by  legislation  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  State  Courts  –  jurisdictional  limit  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  

Local  Court  –  Civil  ($100k  for  general  div  and  $10k  for  small  claims)  under  Pt  3  and  Criminal  under  Pt  4:  Local  Courts  Act  2007  (NSW)  .............................................................................................  38  District  Court  –  Civil  ($750k)  under  Pt  3  and  Criminal  under  Pt  4:  District  Court  Act  1973  (NSW)  ..........................................................................................................................................................  38  Supreme  Court  –  Civil  and  Criminal  (unlimited):  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  (NSW)  ..................................................................................................................................................................................  38  

Inherent  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  Supreme  court  –  all  powers  necessary  to  enable  it  to  act  effectively,  to  control  its  own  proceedings  and  prevent  abuse  of  process  .......................................................................................................  38  

Cross-­‐vesting:  Jurisdiction  of  Courts  (Cross-­‐vesting)  Act  1987  (Cth  and  all  states)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................  38  Under  the  Cross-­‐vesting  Acts,  provisions  which  confer  Federal  jurisdiction  on  State  courts  are  valid,  but  it  is  unconstitutional  to  confer  State  jurisdiction  on  Federal  Courts:  Re  Wakim;  Ex  parte  McNally  (1999)  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  38  As  such,  the  cross-­‐vesting  scheme  only  provides  for:  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  

Conferral  of  federal  jurisdiction  on  State  courts:  s  4,  Cth  Act  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  Cross-­‐vesting  of  State  jurisdiction  amongst  State  courts:  e.g.  s  4,  NSW  Act  ................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  Transfer  of  proceedings  between  courts  participating  in  the  scheme:  s  5,  NSW  Act  ..................................................................................................................................................................................  39  

P’s  choice  of  tribunal  and  the  reasons  for  it  are  not  to  be  taken  into  account  in  determining  whether  the  proceedings  should  be  transferred  to  another  court:  BHP  Billiton  v  Schultz  (2004).  ...............  39  ORIGINATING  PROCEEDINGS  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  

Service  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  Service  defines  jurisdiction:  Laurie  v  Carroll  (1958)  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  39  An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  r  31.2  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................  39  Service  generally  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  

Effect  service  by  either  leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1)),  or,  where  not  possible  by  threat  of  violence,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  ..................................  40  If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  ....................................................................................  40  

Page 7: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

7  

Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jurisdiction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson  .................................................................................................................................  40  Where  threat  of  violence  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  

Other  methods  of  service,  subject  to  rules  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  Service  on  a  corporation  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  40  

By  Corporations  Act  2001  (Cth),  service  is  by  leaving  it  or  posting  it  to  the  company’s  registered  office:  s  109X(1)(a)  CA  .............................................................................................................................  40  By  UCPR,  originating  process  must  be  served  on  each  D:  r  6.2(3)  UCPR  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  

Any  originating  process  in  proceedings  in  the  SC  must  be  served  personally:  r  10.20(2)(a)  UCPR  ..............................................................................................................................................................  41  Effect  service  by  serving  on  a  head  officer  or  on  a  similar  officer  of  the  corporation  (UCPR,  r  10.22),  or,  if  they  don’t  accept,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  and  telling  the  person  the  nature  of  the  document  (UCPR,  r  10.21)  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  ..................................  41  If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  ....................................................................................  41  Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jursidction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson  ..................................................................................................................................  41  

Service  on  an  interstate  company  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  An  originating  process  for  service  in  Australia,  but  outside  NSW  must  bear  a  statement  that  either  P  intends  to  proceed  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth)  or  that  the  plaintiff  intends  to  proceed  under  the  UCPR  (UCPR,  r  10.3(3)).  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  

ss  109X(1)  and  (2)  CA  do  not  apply  to  a  process,  order  or  document  that  may  be  served  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act:  s  9(9)  SEPA  ..........................................................................  41  By  UCPR,  any  originating  process  in  proceedings  in  the  SC  must  be  served  personally  on  a  principal  officer  of  the  company:  r  10.22  UCPR  ................................................................................................  41  

A  “principal  officer”  is  defined  under  r  10.21  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  41  By  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth),  there  are  several  ways  to  effect  service  ........................................................................................................................................................................  42  

Service  of  a  process,  order  or  document  on  a  company  is  to  be  effected  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  company’s  registered  office  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(1))  ..  42  A  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  a  company  by  delivering  a  copy  of  it  personally  to  a  director  of  the  company  who  resides  within  Australia  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(2))  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  If  a  liquidator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(3)),  official  manager  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4))  or  administrator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4A))  of  a  company  has  been  appointed,  a  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  the  company  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  office  of  the  liquidator,  official  manager  or  administrator  lodged  under  the  Corporations  Act  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  

An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  s  11  SEPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................  42  Service  on  a  D  who  is  interstate  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  

An  originating  process  for  service  in  Australia,  but  outside  NSW  must  bear  a  statement  that  either  P  intends  to  proceed  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth)  or  that  the  plaintiff  intends  to  proceed  under  the  UCPR  (UCPR,  r  10.3(3)).  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  

Effect  service  by  either  leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1)),  or,  where  not  possible  by  threat  of  violence,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  42  There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  ..................................  43  If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  ....................................................................................  43  Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jursidction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson  ..................................................................................................................................  43  

Where  threat  of  violence  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  43  By  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth),  there  are  several  ways  to  effect  service  ........................................................................................................................................................................  43  

Service  of  a  process,  order  or  document  on  a  company  is  to  be  effected  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  company’s  registered  office  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(1))  ..  43  A  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  a  company  by  delivering  a  copy  of  it  personally  to  a  director  of  the  company  who  resides  within  Australia  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(2))  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  43  If  a  liquidator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(3)),  official  manager  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4))  or  administrator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4A))  of  a  company  has  been  appointed,  a  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  the  company  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  office  of  the  liquidator,  official  manager  or  administrator  lodged  under  the  Corporations  Act  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  43  

An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  s  11  SEPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................  43  

Page 8: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

8  

Service  on  D  who  is  overseas  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  43  They  need  not  be  personally  served  as  long  as  it  is  served  on  the  person  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  country  in  which  service  is  effected:  r  11.6  UCPR  ..................................................................  44  Further,  if  D  does  not  enter  an  appearance,  P  may  not  proceed  against  D  without  leave  of  SC:  r  11.4(1)  ......................................................................................................................................................  44  

In  granting  leave,  court  must  regard  4  factors:  Bulldogs  v  Williams  (2008)  .................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  Obtaining  order  for  substituted  service  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  

P  must  satisfy  court  that  documents  either  cannot  practicably  be  served  on  person  (r  10.14(1)(a)  UCPR)  or  cannot  practicably  be  served  on  the  person  in  the  manner  provided  by  law  (r  10.14(1)(b)  UCPR)  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  

If  satisfied,  P  must  show  evidence  of  searches  and  inquiries  to  find  the  person  and  that  proposed  method  of  substituted  service  is  likely  to  bring  notice  to  party’s  attention: Syndicate  Mortgage  Solutions  Pty  Ltd  v  Khaled  El-­‐Sayed  (2009)  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  Examples  of  attempts  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  

Objection  to  service  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  Seeking  order  to  set  aside  originating  process:  r  12.11(a)  UCPR  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................  44  An  order  setting  aside  the  service  of  the  originating  process  on  the  defendant  (UCPR,  r  12.11(1)(b))  ............................................................................................................................................................  45  An  order  declaring  that  the  originating  process  has  not  been  duly  served  on  the  defendant  (UCPR,  r  12.11(1)(c))  ........................................................................................................................................  45  

Statement  of  Claim  or  Summons?  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................  45  Summons  are  used  where  questions  of  law  are  in  dispute:  r  6.4  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................  45  

Forms  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  46  Represented:  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  46  Unrepresented:  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  46  

Statement  of  Claims  are  used  where  issues  of  fact  are  in  dispute:  r  6.3  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................  46  Information  needed  on  originating  process  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  46  

Pleadings:  Pt  14  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  Form:  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

Pleadings  to  be  divided  into  paragraphs  14.6  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  Pleadings  to  contain  facts,  not  evidence  14.7  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

A  party  need  not  plead  a  fact  if  fact  is  presumed  by  law  to  be  true  (UCPR,  r  14.10(a))  and  burden  of  disproving  the  fact  lies  on  the  opposite  party  (UCPR,  r  14.10(b))  ................................................  47  Facts,  not  allegations,  must  be  pleaded:  Gunns  v  Marr  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

Pleadings  to  be  brief  -­‐  14.8  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  Contents  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

Where  there  are  references  in  pleadings  to  documents  and  conversations,  they  should  describe  the  effect  of  the  document  or  conversation:  r  14.9  ...............................................................................  47  Pleadings  must  not  claim  for  an  unliquidated  amount:  r  14.13(1)  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

Exception  to  this  is  the  claim  is  in  the  Local  Court  in  regards  to  repair  towing  or  cost  of  hiring  a  motor  vehicle  is  a  consequence  of  damaged  alleged  as  a  result  of  negligence  by  D  or  D’s  agent  or  servant:  r  14.13(2)  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  47  

Matter  must  be  specifically  pleaded  by  plaintiff  or  defendant  if  it  would  take  the  other  party  by  surprise:  r  14.14  .......................................................................................................................................  47  Material  facts  are  not  statement  of  material  facts  alone  –  “material”  means  material  to  the  claim  ,  that  is,  to  the  cause/s  of  action  which  are  relied  upon:  Kirby  v  Sanderson  (2002)  .......................  47  A  pleading  must  disclose  a  reasonable  COA  and  the  facts  that  support  it  in  order  to  assist  D  to  the  case  they  have  to  meet  –the  pleading  is  not  sufficient  if  no  COA  can  be  deduced  from  it  when  the  statement  stands  alone:  Charlie  Carter  v  Allied  Employees’  Association  (WA)  (1987)  ................................................................................................................................................................................  48  Particulars  must  also  be  provided:  r  15.1  UCPR  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  48  

The  particulars  to  be  given  must  be  set  out  in  the  pleading  or,  if  that  is  inconvenient,  must  be  set  out  in  a  separate  document  referred  to  in  the  pleading  and  filed  with  the  pleading  (UCPR,  r  15.9).  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  48  Pleadings  must  also  be  intelligible  and  state  the  facts  on  which  P  relies  for  the  existence  for  their  COA.  Incoherent  statements  of  claim  should  not  be  allowed:  Markisic  v  Dept  of  Community  Services  of  NSW  (2006)  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  48  If  pleadings  are  not  clear,  provide  procedural  fairness,  etc,  and  are,  instead,  intelligible,  ambiguous,  vague  or  just  too  general  so  as  to  embarrass  the  opposite  party  who  does  not  know  what  is  alleged  against  him,  the  court  may  order  pleading  be  struck  out:  Priest  v  NSW  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  48  

Page 9: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

9  

This  must  be  supported  by  particulars,  either  set  out  in  the  pleading  or,  if  that  is  inconvenient,  set  out  in  a  separate  document  referred  to  in  the  pleading  and  filed  with  the  pleading:  r  15.9  UCPR  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  48  A  party’s  pleadings  must  be  verified  by  affidavit  (UCPR,  r  14.23(2)).  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................  48  

Exceptions  to  verification  by  affidavit  where  there  is  a  recovery  of  pages  for  the  following  .............................................................................................................................................................  48  Amendment  of  pleadings  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  

Defendant  must  plead  contributory  negligence:  r  14.16  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Pleadings  must  be  consistent  but  matters  can  be  pleaded  in  the  alternative:  r  14.18  .....................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Pleadings  may  raise  points  of  law:  r  14.19  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Cannot  plead  the  general  issue:  r  14.20  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  

Where  incorrectly  commenced  by:  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Summons:  r  6.6  UCPR  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Statement  of  claim:  r  6.5  UCPR  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  

…  proceedings  will  be  taken  to  have  been  duly  commenced  as  from  date  of  filing  and  will  be  continued  accordingly:  Greenwood  v  Papademetri  (2007)  ...............................................................................  49  Consider  liquidated  vs  unliquidated  claims  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  

Where  unliquidated  claims  in  District  Court,  PN  DC  (Civil)  1  requires  additional  requirements:  .....................................................................................................................................................................  49  P’s  preparation  for  trial  must  be  well  advanced  before  filing  SOC:  para  2.1  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................  49  On  serving  SOC,  P  must  also  serve  on  D:  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  

Proposed  consent  orders  for  preparation  of  case:  para  3.1  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  49  Notification  of  the  date  and  time  of  the  pre-­‐trial  conference  which  will  be  provided  on  filing  of  the  SOC:  para  5.1  .............................................................................................................................  49  

Any  particulars  of  the  claim  that  are  required  should  have  been  requested  and  supplied  by  time  of  pre-­‐trial  conference:  para  3.3  ........................................................................................................  49  Defence  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  50  

If  D  does  not  respond  or  specifically  deny  each  factual  allegation  in  the  SOC,  those  facts  are  deemed  to  be  admitted:  r  14.26  UCPR  ...............................................................................................................  50  A  party  may  not  withdraw  an  admission  or  any  matter  that  operates  for  the  benefit  of  another  party  without  consent  of  the  other  party  or  by  leave  of  the  court:  r  12.6(2)  UCPR  .................................  50  

However,  any  defence  may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  (r  12.6(1)  UCPR)  by  filing  a  notice  of  withdrawal  stating  the  extent  of  the  withdrawal  (r  12.6(3)  UCPR)  ......................................................................  50  Where  withdrawal  is  by  consent,  notice  of  withdrawal  must  be  accompanied  by  a  notice  of  consent  by  all  relevant  parties:  r  12.6(4)  UCPR  ..............................................................................................  50  

It  is  in  the  defence  that  D  counter  claims  and  requests  further  particulars  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................  50  Particulars  operate  to  assist  in  defining  the  case  in  which  D  has  to  answer:  Sims  v  Wran  (1984)  per  Hunt  J  ..................................................................................................................................................  50  

However,  there  is  a  fine  line  between  giving  particulars  of  the  case,  and  disclosing  evidence  by  which  that  case  is  to  be  proved:  Allianz  v  Newcastle  Formwork  (2007)  ..............................................  50  Providing  of  particulars  is  only  a  bit  more  onerous  in  regards  to  personal  injury  claims  where  a  full  list  of  particulars  are  required:  r  15.12  UCPR  ......................................................................................  50  

P  must  also  provide  particulars  for  allegations  of  fraud  (r  15.3),  condition  of  mind  (r  15.4),  negligence  and  tort  (r  15.5),  claims  for  out  of  pocket  expenses  (r  15.6),  exemplary  damages  (r  15.7)  and  aggravated  damages  (r  15.8),  but  it  is  not  to  the  specificity  of  r  15.12  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................  50  

The  court  can  make  an  order  for  particulars  to  be  filed:  r  15.10(1)(a)  UCPR  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................  50  Reply:  r  14.4  UCPR  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  51  

It  is  presumed  that,  where  there  is  no  reply  to  defence  by  P,  there  is  a  denial  of  every  allegation  of  fact  made  in  the  pleading:  r  14.27(2)  and  (5)  UCPR  ................................................................................  51  In  proceedings  in  the  Supreme  Court  or  the  District  Court,  a  plaintiff  may  file  a  reply  to  a  defence:  subs  1  ........................................................................................................................................................  51  In  proceedings  in  the  Local  Court,  a  plaintiff  may  file  a  reply  to  a  defence  only  by  leave  of  the  Court:  subs  2  .....................................................................................................................................................  51  The  time  limited  for  the  plaintiff  to  file  a  reply  is  14  days  after  service  of  the  defence  on  the  plaintiff:  subs  3  ...................................................................................................................................................  51  

Counter  claims  and  set  offs  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  51  Set  offs  are  where  one  party  can  apply  a  debt  (liquidated  claim)  owed  to  him  by  an  other  party  to  discharge  all  or  party  of  a  debt  he  owes  that  party  ..................................................................................  51  

D  has  a  right  to  set  off  if  there  are  mutual  debts  between  P  and  D  as  way  of  defence:  CPA  s  21  ....................................................................................................................................................................  51  s  21  CPA  does  not  apply  to  unliquidated  claims  and  is  restricted  to  mutual  debts:  Integral  Home  Loans  v  Interstar  (No  2)(2007)  ...........................................................................................................  51  

Counter  claims  is  a  procedural  device  where  actions  by  one  party  against  the  other  and  vice  versa  are  heard  part  of  one  proceeding:  s  22  CPA  .............................................................................................  51  This  is  a  procedural  device  only  and  not  a  substantive  right  –  any  substantive  right  to  claim  contribution  exists  independently:  Dillingham  v  Steel  Mains  (1975)  .............................................................  51  

Page 10: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

10  

Counter  claims  against  P  do  not  have  to  related  or  connected  to  P’s  claim  or  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  –  it  is  merely  required  to  be  within  the  same  parties  to  the  original  claim  and  be  a  matter  where  court  has  jurisdiction:  s  22(1)  CPA  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  51  

However,  D  can  bring  a  counter  claim  against  a  person  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  proceedings  if  it  is  related  or  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  existing  proceedings:  s  22(2)  CPA  ..........................  51  This  party  must  be  served  with  both  the  originating  process  and  the  cross  claim:  r  9.7  UCPR  ..............................................................................................................................................................  52  

Counter  claims  must  be  made  in  the  same  time  limit  for  a  party  to  file  a  defence:  r  9.1  UCPR  .......................................................................................................................................................................  52  For  proceedings  commencing  as  a  SOC,  this  period  is  28  days  after  service  or  such  time  the  court  directs:  r  6.10(1)(a)  UCPR  .................................................................................................................  52  

Defences  to  a  counter  claim  must  be  made  in  the  same  manner  as  a  SOC:  r  9.4  UCPR  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  52  If  a  cross  D  does  not  file  a  defence,  the  decision  as  between  parties  to  the  counter  claim,  are  binding:  r  9.5  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................  52  

DISCONTINUANCE,  WITHDRAWAL,  SUMMARY  DISMISSAL  AND  SETTING  ASIDE  OF  ORIGINATING  PROCESS:  PT  12  UCPR  .............................................................................................................  52  P  may  do  so  in  regards  to  all  claims  for  relief  or  all  claims  for  relieve  in  respect  to  a  particular  D  by  filing  a  notice  of  discontinuance:  r  12.1(1)  UCPR  ...............................  52  

However,  this  requires  consent  of  each  active  party  (subs  a),  and  with  leave  of  the  court  (subs  b)  ....................................................................................................................................................................  52  Notice  of  discontinuance  must  have  a  certificate  by  solicitor  saying  that  P  is  only  discontinuing  for  themselves  and  for  no  one  else:  subs  2(a)  ...............................................................................................  52  

However,  if  the  notice  is  to  represent  more  than  P,  there  must  be  a  notice  from  each  party  whose  consent  is  required  under  subs  1  to  the  effect  that  the  relevant  party  consents  to  the  proceedings  being  discontinued,  with  leave  of  the  court:  subs  2(b)  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  52  

In  this  instance,  a  notice  of  consent  is  required:  subs  3  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  52  This  rule  does  not  apply  to  proceedings  on  a  counter  claim:  subs  5  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  52  

Effect  of  discontinuance  -­‐  does  not  prevent  plaintiff  starting  again:  r  12.3  UCPR  ..........................................................................................................................................  52  However,  this  is  subject  to  consent  and  leave  requirements  as  outlined  in  r  12.1  UCPR  ......................................................................................................................................................................................  52  

Dismissal  of  proceedings  for  lack  of  progress:  Pt  12  Div  3  ..............................................................................................................................................................................  53  Dismissal  due  to  want  of  due  despatch:  If  P  does  not  prosecute  (subs  1)  or  D  conduct  defence  (subs  2)  with  due  despatch,  court  may  order  proceedings  be  dismissed,  defences  may  be  struck  out  in  part  or  in  full,  or  any  other  order  the  court  sees  fit:  r  12.7  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  

ss  56-­‐60  CPA  are  relevant  considerations  in  the  court’s  decision  to  do  so  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  In  the  Supreme  Court,  if  no  action  has  been  made  in  5  months,  court  may  dismiss  proceedings  of  its  own  motion:  r  12.8  UCPR  ......................................................................................................................  53  

Notice  must  be  given  to  P  and  any  other  active  party  before  this  is  to  be  done:  r  12.8(4)  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................  53  In  the  District  or  Local  Court,  if  no  defence  or  cross-­‐claim  has  been  filed,  an  application  for  default  judgement  has  not  been  filed  and  proceedings  not  otherwise  disposed  of  in  9  months,  court  may  dismiss  proceedings  of  its  own  motion:  r  12.9(2)  UCPR  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  

No  notice  is  needed:  r  12.9(3)  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  DEFECTIVE  PLEADINGS  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  

Summary  judgment  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  P  can  apply  for  summary  judgement  against  D  who  has  filed  a  defence  that  does  not  reveal  a  valid  defence  to  P’s  claim,  or  whose  only  defence  is  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  damages  claimed:  r  13.1  UCPR  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  D  can  apply  for  summary  judgement  against  P  who  has  filed  a  statement  of  claim  or  summons  that  is  frivolous,  vexatious,  where  no  reasonable  COA,  or  the  proceedings  are  an  abuse  of  process:  r  13.4  UCPR  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  

Frivolous  proceedings  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  53  Vexatious  proceedings  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  Abuse  of  process  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  

Summary  judgements  are  to  be  “sparingly  employed”:  General  Steel  v  Commissioner  for  Railways  (1964)  .......................................................................................................................................................  54  A  case  must  be  very  clear  to  justify  the  summary  intervention  of  the  court  to  prevent  a  party  from  submitting  his  case  for  determination  by  the  court:  Dey  v  Victorian  Railways  Commissioners  (1948)  per  Dixon  J  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  

Striking  out  pleadings  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  Whole  or  part  of  a  pleading  may  be  struck  out  if  pleading  discloses  no  reasonable  COA  or  defence  (r  14.28(1)(a)  UCPR),  may  cause  prejudice,  embarrassment  or  delay  in  proceedings  (r  14.28(1)(b)  UCPR),  or  is  an  abuse  of  process  (r  14.28(1)(c)  UCPR):  Markisic  v  Dpt  of  Community  Service  of  NSW  (No  2)  ......................................................................................................................................................  54  

CONCLUDING  PROCEEDINGS  BEFORE  TRIAL  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  

Page 11: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

11  

Default  judgment  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  P  can  apply  for  a  default  judgement  if  D  does  not  file  an  appearance  or  a  defence  within  the  required  time:  r  16.3  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................  54  

Default  judgements  provide  an  incentive  for  D  to  file  an  appearance,  a  defence  (r  16.2(1)(a)  UCPR),  any  affidavit  verifying  his  defence  (r  16.2(1)(b)  UCPR),  or  D  files  a  defence  that  the  court  strikes  out  (r  16.2(1)(c)  UCPR)  within  the  prescribe  period  of  time  of  28  days  (r  14.3  UCPR)  ............................................................................................................................................................................................  54  Any  application  for  default  judgement  just  be  accompanied  by:  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  54  

Affidavits  in  support  of  requirements:  r  16.6  UCPR  (in  regards  to  liquidated  claims)  or  r  16.7  UCPR  (in  regards  to  unliquidated  claims)  .................................................................................................  55  Affidavit  of  service  of  the  originating  process:  r  16.3  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  

Liquidated  vs  Unliquidated  claims  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  In  the  case  of  a  liquidated  claim  (r  16.6  UCPR),  P  must  file:  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  

The  required  notice  of  motion,  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  An  affidavit  of  service  of  the  statement  of  claim,  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  An  affidavit  in  support  which  will  contain  proof  of  the  debt  -­‐  note  that  the  affidavit  should  include  a  statement  the  source  of  the  knowledge,  information  or  belief  on  which  the  affidavit  is  based  [section  172  Evidence  Act  1995  (NSW)].  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  N.B.  Once  the  Registry  has  processed  these  documents,  judgment  is  entered  and  the  plaintiff  can  take  steps  to  enforce  the  judgment.  ..........................................................................................  55  

In  the  case  of  an  unliquidated  claim    (r  16.7  UCPR),  judgement  is  entered  in  favour  of  D  and  matter  proceeds  with  an  assessment  of  damages  to  which  P  is  entitled:  r  16.7  UCPR  .................................  55  Neither  service  of  the  application  for  default  judgement,  or  the  presence  of  D  is  needed:  r  16.4(1A)  UCPR  ..................................................................................................................................................  55  

D  can  apply  to  the  court  to  exercise  it’s  discretion  to  rule  that  a  default  judgement  be  set  aside:  r  36.16(2)(a)  UCPR  ........................................................................................................................................  55  D  must  explain  the  delay  in  filing  a  defence  and  satisfy  the  court  that  there  is  a  meritable  defence:  Borowiak  v  Hobbs  (2006).  D  must  also  prove  that  there  is  no  prejudice  to  the  other  side  to  be  let  back  in  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  55  

COSTS  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  56  Costs  follow  the  event:  r  42.1  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................  56  

This  principle  is  subject  to  the  court  making  some  other  order  it  sees  fit  (r  42.1  UCPR)  –  this  includes  costs  orders  on  the  ordinary  or  indemnity  basis  (s  98  CPA)  .................................................................  56  Indemnity  costs  should  be  paid  other  than  thse  that  appear  to  have  been  unreasonably  incurred  or  appear  to  be  of  an  unreasonable  amount:  r  42.5(b)  UCPR  ...............................................................  56  

And  this  principle  is  subject  to  the  overriding  purpose  in  s  56  CPA  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................  56  s  60  CPA  provides  that  the  use  of  this  discretion  is  guided  by  proportionality  principles:  see:  Zanella  v  Madden  (2007)  per  Young  J  ...........................................................................................................  56  

See  also:  Vella  v  ANZ  (2011)  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  56  Also  bear  in  mind  that  costs  made  following  interlocutory  decisions  are  payable  on  the  conclusion  of  proceedings  unless  the  court  otherwise  orders:  r  42.7  UCPR  .............................................................  56  

Cost  assessments  are  rarely  made,  but  when  made,  are  done  so  under  s  353  LPA  ........................................................................................................................................  56  Exception  to  the  costs  follow  the  event  rule  are  Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  .............................................................................................................................................  56  

This  is  a  situation  where  there  is  one  P  and  two  D’s  (D1  and  D2)  –  P  wins  against  D2,  P  loses  against  D1  ...........................................................................................................................................................  57  Bullock  order  is  where  P  pays  D1,  but  P  can  recover  costs  from  D2  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................  57  Sanderson  order  is  where  D2  pays  P  directly  and  pays  D1  directly  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................  57  

Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  may  be  made  where  it  was  (i)  reasonable  for  P  to  proceed  against  D1,  and  (ii)  the  conduct  of  D2  drew  D1  into  litigation  ................................................................................  57  Cost  orders  against  lawyers  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  57  

Lawyers  have  a  duty  to  assist  the  courts  to  achieve  the  overriding  purpose:  s  56(4)  CPA  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  57  Any  failure  to  do  so  can  give  a  costs  order  under  s  99  CPA,  which  applies  to  serious  neglect,  misconduct  or  incompetence  of  lawyer:  see:  Treadwell  v  Hickey  .................................................................  57  

S  348  LPA  achieves  the  same  aim  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  57  Security  for  costs  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  57  

Court  has  power  to  order  P  to  give  security  for  D’s  cost  of  defending  P’s  claim  and  can  order  stay  of  proceedings  until  this  is  done:  r  42.21  ...................................................................................................  57  This  order  is  discretionary  and  discretion  is  unfettered,  but  it  will  not  be  made  automatically:  Barton  v  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  (1984)  ...............................................................................................  57  The  court  may  do  so  if:  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  58  

P  is  normally  a  resident  outside  NSW:  subs  1  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  58  

Page 12: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

12  

The  court  took  “outside  NSW”  to  mean  ouside  Australia  or  a  person  who  lives  in  a  Territory  –  to  define  “outside  NSW”  to  mean  “another  state  in  Australia  not  in  NSW”  would  be  unconstitutional  under  s  117:  Aus  Building  construction  Employee  v  Commonwealth  Trading  Bank  (1976)  ........................................................................................................................................  58  

Address  of  P  is  not  stated  or  misstated  in  originating  process  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  due  to  an  intention  to  deceive:  subs  2  .................................................................................  58  P  changes  address  after  proceedings  have  commenced  and  P  did  so  to  avoid  consequences  of  proceedings:  subs  3  ...............................................................................................................................  58  P  is  a  corporation  and  will  be  unable  to  pay  costs  if  ordered  to  do  so:  subs  d  ............................................................................................................................................................................................  58  

The  evidence  to  be  relied  on  must  have  some  characteristic  of  cogency.  Furthermore,  speculation  as  to  the  insolvency  or  financial  difficulties  experienced  by  the  plaintiff  company  is  insufficient  to  ground  the  exercise  of  the  discretion:  Warren  Mitchell  P/L  v  Australian  Maritime  Officers  Union  (1993)  ........................................................................................................................................  58  

P  is  suing  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  and  P  will  be  unable  to  pay  costs  of  D:  subs  e  ..................................................................................................................................................................................  58  However,  establishing  one  of  these  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  an  order  is  justified  ...............................................................................................................................................................................  58  

Generally,  a  “natural  person”  who  sues  will  not  be  ordered  to  give  security  costs,  however  poor:  Pearson  v  Naydler  (1977)  ..................................................................................................................  58  Even  with  corporations,  the  evidence  to  be  relied  on  must  have  some  characteristic  of  cogency.  Furthermore,  speculation  as  to  the  insolvency  or  financial  difficulties  experienced  by  the  plaintiff  company  is  insufficient  to  ground  the  exercise  of  the  discretion:  Warren  Mitchell  P/L  v  Australian  Maritime  Officers  Union  (1993)  ..................................................................................................  58  

Facts  to  be  considered  in  the  balancing  process  of  factors  in  use  of  discretion:  Idoport  v  NAB  (2001)  ......................................................................................................................................................  58  That  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  strength  and  bona  fides  of  the  applicant’s  case  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  59  Whether  the  applicant’s  impecuniosity  was  caused  by  the  respondent’s  conduct  subject  of  the  claim  ................................................................................................................................................  59  Whether  the  respondent’s  application  for  security  is  oppressive,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  being  used  merely  to  deny  an  impecunious  applicant  a  right  to  litigate  ......................................................  59  Whether  there  are  any  persons  standing  behind  the  company  who  are  likely  to  benefit  from  the  litigation  and  who  are  willing  to  provide  the  necessary  security,  and  if  yes  ................................  59  Whether  persons  standing  behind  the  company  have  offered  any  personal  undertaking  to  be  liable  for  the  costs  and  if  so,  the  form  of  any  such  undertaking  .......................................................  59  Security  will  only  ordinarily  be  ordered  against  a  party  who  is  in  substance  a  plaintiff,  and  an  order  ought  not  to  be  made  against  parties  who  are  defending  themselves  (e.g.  directly  resisting  proceedings  already  brought  or  seeking  to  halt  self-­‐help  procedures)  and  thus  forced  to  litigate.  .......................................................................................................................................................  59  

Any  application  for  security  for  costs  should  be  made  promptly  as  it  is  “unfair  to  lull  P”  into  preparation  of  the  proceedings:  Avner  v  Dimopoulos  ...................................................................................  59  Non-­‐compliance  with  security  orders  may  result  in  the  court  dismissing  P’s  proceedings:  r  42.21  UCPRs  ......................................................................................................................................................  59  

Offers  of  compromise/Calderbank  letters  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................  59  Differences  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  59  Offers  of  compromise  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  

Making  an  offer  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  Any  party  can  make  an  offer  at  any  time:  r  20.26  UCPR  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  

However,  offer  must  be  exclusive  of  costs:  subs  2  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  Offer  must  state  offer  is  in  accordance  with  Pt  20  of  the  rules:  subs  3  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  P  may  not  make  an  offer  unless  D  has  received  particulars  of  P’s  claim:  subs  4  .....................................................................................................................................................................................  60  

If  P  has  made  an  offer  and  D  feels  they  do  not  have  sufficient  information  to  make  a  decision,  they  can  ask  for  particulars  within  14  days  of  receipt  of  offer:  subs  5  ........................................  60  There  are  time  limits  to  how  long  the  offer  is  open  for  acceptance:  subs  7  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................  60  

If  offer  was  made  at  least  2  months  before  trial  date,  closing  date  for  acceptance  of  offer  must  not  be  less  than  28  days:  subs  a  .................................................................................................  60  If  offer  was  made  less  than  2  months  before  trial  date,  closing  date  for  acceptance  of  offer  is  what  is  reasonable  in  the  circumstances:  subs  b  ..........................................................................  60  

Accepting  or  rejecting  an  offer  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  Offer  must  be  accepted  in  writing  within  28  days  (unless  otherwise  stated  in  the  offer)  ...........................................................................................................................................................................  60  Table  of  entitlement  to  costs  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  60  

If  accepted  and  unless  otherwise  specified  in  the  notice  of  offer,  all  payment  under  the  offer  must  be  made  within  28  days  of  the  offer:  r  20.26(8)  UCPR  ..............................................................  61  Calderbank  letter  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  61  

Form  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  61  Must  make  clear  that  this  is  a  Calderbank  letter  by  either  saying  “this  is  a  Calderbank  letter”  or  “without  prejudice  except  with  costs”  –  this  allows  you  to  go  to  take  the  letter  to  court  to  prove  your  offer  and  be  able  to  apply  to  claim  for  indemnities  from  the  day  of  the  offer:  Calderbank  v  Calderbank  (1975)  ...............................................................................................................................  61  Offer  can  be  inclusive  or  exclusive  of  costs  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  61  

Making  a  Calderbank  offer  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  61  D’s  offer  must  be  a  genuine  offer  that  allows  an  appropriate  opportunity  for  the  other  party  to  consider  the  offer  ................................................................................................................................  61  

Page 13: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

13  

The  court  will  take  into  about  the  Offeror’s  circumstances  in  order  to  determine  whether  the  offer  was  genuine:  Maitland  Hospital  v  Fisher  (No  2)  (1992)  ............................................................  61  NSWCA  found  that  $129.24  difference  was  held  to  constitute  a  genuine  offer  of  compromise:  Forbes  Memorial  Club  v  Hodge  (1995)  .............................................................................................  62  Generally,  a  “walk-­‐away”  offer  (i.e.  walk  away  from  the  proceedings  and  get  $X  and  each  party  pay  own  costs)  is  not  a  genuine  compromise:  Herning  v  GWS  (No  2)  (2005)  ................................  62  

However,  it  depends  on  the  circumstances  –  it  depends  on  whether  the  offer  in  the  circumstances  represented  a  genuine  attempt  to  reach  a  negotiated  settlement:  Leichhardt  v  Green  (2004)  per  Santow  J  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  62  

Rejection  of  the  offer  must  be  unreasonable:  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  62  Rejection  of  an  offer  when  Offeree  know  there  is  evidence  that  will  go  against  him  may  be  held  unreasonable:  Blagojevch  v  Australian  Industrial  Relations  Commission  (2000)  ..........................  62  Greater  sympathy  accorded  to  Offeree  who  receives  offer  early  in  proceedings  where  there  has  been  no  reasonable  opportunity  for  it  to  assess  its  questions  of  liability  or  likely  exposure  in  damages  –  this  is  assessed  on  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis:  Elite  v  Salmon  (2007)  per  Basten  JA  .........................................................................................................................................................................  62  Where  cross-­‐claim  made  after  offer,  produces  a  change  in  circumstances  and  Offeree  rejects  on  this  basis,  it  may  be  considered  a  reasonable  rejection  of  offer:  Rolls  Royce  v  James  Hardie  (2001)  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  62  Where  offer  is  subject  to  a  non-­‐monetary  condition  (e.g.  apology),  the  court  will  use  discretion  to  consider  reasonable  of  condition  and  assess  whether  judgement  result  was  more  favourable  than  the  offer:  Magenta  v  Richard  Ellis  (1995)  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  62  Rejection  of  an  offer  conditional  upon  the  release  of  unrelated  proceedings  may  be  considered  reasonable:  Baulderstone  v  Gordian  (2006)  ..................................................................................  62  

Types  of  Calderbank  offers  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  Offers  inclusive  of  costs:  Elite  v  Salmon  (2007)  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  

These  are  only  contentious  really  when  Offeree  rejects  an  offer  and  receives  a  judgement  less  than  that  amount  .............................................................................................................................  63  Non-­‐conforming  rule  offers  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  

Rule  offers  that  do  not  conform  with  UCPR  requirements  should  not  automatically  be  considered  to  be  a  Calderbank  letter  –  it  depends  on  the  intention  of  the  Offeror  as  revealed  by  terms  of  the  offer:  Salvation  Army  v  Becker  (No  2)(2007)  per  Ipp  JA  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  

Offer  of  compromise  limited  to  liability:  Vale  v  Eggins  (No  2)  (2007)  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  Offer  in  the  alternative:  Vale  v  Eggins  (No  2)(2007)  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  Offer  foregoing  interest  (as  you  are  entitled  to  under  ss  100  [up  to  judgement]  and  101  [after  judgement]  CPA):  Manly  Council  v  Byrne  (No  2)(2004)  .........................................................................  63  

Orders  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  63  Calderbank  offer  does  not  automatically  result  in  the  court  making  an  order  for  indemnity  costs:  SMEC  v  Campbelltown  City  Council  (2000)  .......................................................................................  63  

EVIDENCE  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  64  SUBPOENAS  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  64  

The  power  to  issue  a  subpoena  is  set  out  in  s  68  CPA.  The  rules  in  regards  to  subpoenas  is  set  out  in  Pt  33  UCPR  .......................................................................................  64  Formal  requirements:  r  33.3  UCPR  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  64  

The  approved  forms  are  Forms  25,  26  and  27  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  64  The  last  day  of  service  of  a  subpoena  is  the  date  falling  5  days  before  the  earliest  date  that  the  addressee  is  required  to  comply  and  the  date  must  be  specified  in  the  subpoena:  r  33.3(8)  UCPR  ...  64  

The  5  days  are  5  clear  days:  r  1.11  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  64  The  court  may  set  side  the  subpoena  on  application  of  a  party  or  person  with  sufficient  interest:  r  33.4  .................................................................................................................................................  64  Conduct  money  as  defined  in  r  33.1  UCPR  must  be  tendered  at  reasonable  time  before  date  attendance  is  required  before  the  person  is  required  to  comply:  r  33.6(1)  UCPR  ...................................  64  

A  subpoena  may  not  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  discovery:  Commissioner  of  Railways  v  Small  (1938)  per  Jordan  CJ  .........................................................................................................................................  64  Subpoenas  may  only  be  used  for  a  legitimate  forensic  purpose  and  not  as  part  of  a  fishing  expedition  –  it  is  considered  to  be  an  abuse  of  process:  Small  (1938)  .............................................................  64  

A  subpoena  is  sent  out  to  3rd  parties  –  a  notice  to  produce  is  for  parties  to  proceedings  ....................................................................................................................................................................................  64  NOTICE  TO  PRODUCE  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

The  power  to  issue  notices  to  produce  before  hearing  is  in  Pt  21  Div  2  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................................  65  A  party  must  produce  documents  or  things  that  are  referred  to  in  any  originating  process,  pleading,  affidavit  or  witness  statement  filed  or  served  that  is  clearly  identified  and  relevant  to  a  fact  in  issue:  r  21.10  UCPR  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

The  approved  form  for  this  type  of  notice  is  form  19.  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  Form  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

Page 14: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

14  

21.11  –  sets  out  the  procedure  for  responding  to  a  notice  to  produce  and  states  that  14  days  is  taken  to  be  a  reasonable  period  of  time  between  service  of  the  notice  and  production.  That  period  could  be  either  extended  or  shortened  on  application  by  the  parties.  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  21.12  -­‐  contains  a  limitation  on  notices  to  produce  issued  for  the  purpose  of  personal  injury  claims.  ...........................................................................................................................................................  65  21.13  –  makes  provisions  in  relation  to  the  costs  of  compliance.  .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

The  power  to  issue  notices  to  produce  at  hearing  is  in  Pt  34  UCPR  ................................................................................................................................................................  65  The  approved  form  for  this  type  of  notice  is  form  19.  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

DISCOVERY  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  Rules  for  discovery  are  in  Pt  21  UCPR  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  

It  is  generally  only  provided  by  leave  of  the  court:  r  21.2  UCPR  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  65  Discovery  in  NSW  is  also  now  restricted  to  classes  of  documents:  r  21.2  UCPR  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................  66  

General  discovery  doesn’t  really  exist  any  more:  Compagnie  Financiere  et  Commerciale  du  Pacifique  v  The  Peruvian  Guano  Co  (1882)  per  Brett  LJ,  followed  by  Mulley  v  Manifold  (1959)  at  345  per  Menzies  J  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  66  

An  excluded  document  is  one  of  the  following  (r  21.1(1)  UCPR)  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  66  (a)   any  document  filed  in  the  proceedings,  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  66  (b)   any  document  served  on  party  A  after  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings,  .................................................................................................................................................................................  66  (d)   any  document  that  wholly  came  into  existence  after  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings,  ...........................................................................................................................................................  66  (c)   any  additional  copy  of  a  document  included  in  the  list  of  documents,  being  a  document  that  contains  no  mark,  deletion  or  ............................................................................................................  66  (d)   other  matter,  relevant  to  a  fact  in  question,  not  present  in  the  document  so  included  ........................................................................................................................................................................  66  (e)   any  document  comprising  an  original  written  communication  sent  by  party  B  prior  to  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  proceedings  of  which  a  copy  is  included  in  the  list  of  documents,  .......  66  but  does  not  include  any  document  that  the  court  declares  not  to  be  an  excluded  document  for  the  purposes  of  those  proceedings.  .......................................................................................................  66  

A  document  is  taken  to  be  “relevant  to  a  fact  in  issue”  if  it  could  rationally  affect  the  assessment  of  probability  of  the  existence  of  that  fact:  r  21.1(2)  UCPR  ........................................................................  66  Where  the  court  orders  discovery  on  a  party,  that  party’s  solicitor  must  provide  an  affidavit  and  certificate  supporting  a  list  of  documents,  swearing  on  the  completeness  of  the  list:  r  21.4  UCPR  ...........  66  

Lawyers  must  not  give  advice  to  destroy  documents  that  might  be  required  in  anticipated  legal  proceedings:  r  142A,  Legal  Profession  Regulation  2002  (NSW)  (After  McCabe)  .....................................  66  There  is  an  implied  undertaking  that  discovered  documents  can  only  be  used  in  proceedings  for  which  they  have  been  discovered,  unless  they  have  been  tendered  in  evidence:  Home  Office  v  Harman  (1983)  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................  67  

This  was  considered  in  HCA  and  found  that  a  party  cannot  use  a  document  that  is  produced  pursuant  to  a  compulsory  process  of  the  court  otherwise  than  for  the  purpose  of  the  proceedings  that  it  is  produced:  Hearne  v  Street  (2008)  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  67  

INTERROGATORIES  ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  67  This  is  different  from  particulars  as  these  are  answered  on  oath  and  seek  admissions  from  other  parties  ...................................................................................................  67  

This  is  also  different  from  notice  to  admit  facts  (r  17.3  UCPR)  where,  if  you  serve  notice  to  admit  facts  and  other  party  does  not  respond,  it  is  assumed  correct  ..................................................................  67  Other  party  must  reply  within  14  days  of  service:  r  17.3(2)  UCPR  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  67  

However,  the  other  party  may  withdraw  admission  with  leave  of  the  court:  r  17.3(3)  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................  67  Interrogatories  cannot  be  made  without  special  reasons  and  may  only  be  made  by  order  from  the  court:  r  22.1  UCPR  ..............................................................................  67  

“Special  reasons”  are  reasons  “out  of  the  ordinary,  extraordinary  or  exceptional”:  O’Meara  v  Arianayagam  (2006)  per  Latham  J  ....................................................................................................................  67  Where  granted  by  the  court,  parties  may  object  on  the  basis  or  relevance  or  vexatious  or  oppressiveness:  r  22.2  UCPR  ..................................................................................................................................  67  

Vexatiousness  and  oppressiveness  is  governed  by  the  proportionality  principles  in  s  61  CPA  ........................................................................................................................................................................  67  There  also  needs  to  be  a  test  for  relevance:  American  Flange  v  Rheem  (1965)  .............................................................................................................................................  68  Examples  of  necessary  interrogatories  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................  68  Examples  of  unnecessary  interrogatories  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................  68  Relevant  forms  are  Form  21  for  interrogatories  and  For  22  for  statement  of  answers  to  interrogatories  .....................................................................................................  68  

JUDGEMENT  ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  

Page 15: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

15  

GENERALLY  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  Power  of  the  court:  s  90  CPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  

r  36.1  UCPR  gives  court  a  power  to  make  a  judgement  as  the  case  requires  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  Consent  orders  allow  judges  to  affirm  the  settlement  agreement  between  parties:  r  36.1A  UCPR  ...............................................................................................................  69  

Must  be  filed  under  this  rule  to  bring  proceedings  to  an  end  ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  Reasons  for  judgements  must  be  given:  r  36.2  UCPR  .....................................................................................................................................................................................  69  

Can  also  be  given  ex  tempore  –  reasons  do  not  need  to  be  given  orally  as  long  as  written  reasons  are  provided  after  the  fact:  r  36.2(1)  UCPR  ...............................................................................................  69  The  date  judgement  goes  into  effect  is  the  date  it  was  given  or  made:  r  36.4(1)(a)  UCPR  ............................................................................................................................  69  

Alternatively,  it  can  be  the  date  it  is  entered:  r  36.4(1)(b)  UCPR  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  EFFECT  OF  JUDGEMENT  ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  

Res  judicata  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  69  Concerned  with  the  remedy  or  relief  granted  in  a  given  set  of  circumstances:  Rogers  v  R  (1994)  .......................................................................................................................................................................  69  

Essentially,  the  principle  is  that  any  judicial  decision  on  any  issue  between  2  parties  is  conclusive  and  cannot  be  re-­‐litigated  .....................................................................................................................  69  Issue  estoppel  .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  

Concerned  with  the  determination  of  issues:  Rogers  v  R  (1994)  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  Principle  is  that,  once  decided,  an  issue  cannot  be  ventilated  again  between  the  same  parties  (this  means  that  parties  will  be  estopped  from  pleading  the  same  COA  again)  .........................................  70  

Anshun  estoppel  .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  Concerned  with  a  claim  so  closely  connected  with  the  subject  matter  of  a  previous  action  that  it  was  expected  that  it  would  be  relied  upon  as  defence  to  that  claim  .........................................................  70  

Principle  is  that,  if  an  issue  was  available  in  the  first  instance  and  not  raised,  it  cannot  be  raised  in  subsequent  proceedings  ......................................................................................................................  70  APPEALS  ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  

Appeals  to  supervisory  jursidction  ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  Appeals  to  questions  of  law  only  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  Appeals  after  trial  before  judge  and  jury  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................  70  Appeals  from  a  judge  –  there  must  be  an  error  of  law  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  71  Rehearings  ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  71  

A  person  aggrieved  by  an  award  may  apply  for  a  rehearing  (s  42(1)  CPA)  and  award  is  suspended  from  time  of  application  until  order  for  rehearing  is  made  (s  42(3)  CPA)  ..................................................  71  A  rehearing  must  be  ordered  if  the  application  was  made  before  award  took  effect  (s  43(1)  CPA)  and  the  amount  claimed  in  proceedings  exceeds  the  jurisdictional  limit  of  the  LC  in  the  Small  Claims  Division,  i.e.  $10k  (s  43(2)  CPA)  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  71  

Further:  s  43  CPA  ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  71  Appeals  of  a  hearing  de  novo  .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  71  Procedure  –  follow  PN  SC  CA  1  ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................  71  

ENFORCEMENT  .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  72  Judgement  must  be  entered  before  it  can  be  enforced:  s  133(1)  CPA  ............................................................................................................................................................  72  

A  registrar  must  furnish  a  sealed  copy  of  any  judgement  or  order  to  anyone  who  applies  for  a  copy:  r  36.12  UCPR  ..........................................................................................................................................  72  The  exception  is  any  proceedings  under  the  Adoption  Act  2000  –  this  may  only  delivered  to  P  unless  court  orders  otherwise:  r  36.12(3)  UCPR  .........................................................................................  72  

An  instalment  order  can  be  made  where  they  have  no  assets:  Pt  8  CPA,  Pt  39  UCPR  ....................................................................................................................................  72  Once  complied  with  orders,  must  satisfy  the  court  by  filing  a  writ  of  execution  ............................................................................................................................................  72  

Application  is  under  r  39.2  UCPR  ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................  72  Application  must  accompanied  by  an  affidavit  in  support  of  application  of  writ  of  execution:  r  39.3  UCPR  ...................................................................................................................................................  72  

If  cannot  comply  with  orders,  can  apply  for  a  garnishee  order  (i.e.  take  money  out  of  your  pay  directly)  –  a  r  39.34  UCPR  application  can  be  filed  to  do  so  .....................  72  

Page 16: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

16  

Application  must  accompanied  by  an  affidavit  in  support  of  application  of  writ  of  execution:  r  39.35  UCPR  .................................................................................................................................................  72  In  the  SC  or  DC,  a  judgement  debt  may  be  enforced  by  a  charging  order:  s  106(1)(c)  CPA  ............................................................................................................................  72  

A  charging  order  charges  a  security  interest  in  favour  of  the  judgement  creditor  as  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  satisfy  the  judgement:  s  126(2)(a)  CPA  ...................................................................................  72  This  provision  also  restrains  charge  from  dealing  with  the  security  interest  unless  directed  by  the  judgement  creditor:  s  126(2)(b)  .......................................................................................................  72  

 

Page 17: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

17  

General  Principles  

Procedural  vs  Substantive  Law:  John  Pfeiffer  v  Rogerson  (1997)  

Substantive  law  =  legal  rights,  duties,  powers  and  liabilities  It  concerns  the  ends  which  the  administration  of  justice  seeks:  Adam  P  Brown  v  Phillip  Morris  (1981)  

Procedural  law  =  law  that  governs  the  method  by  which  rights  are  sought  to  be  enforced  It  regulates  the  way  that  substantive  rights  and  obligations  are  claimed  and  enforced:  Adam  P  Brown  v  Phillip  Morris  (1981)  

• It  doesn’t  impact  on  the  definition  of  those  substantive  rights  

Procedural  law  is  not  less  important  than  substantive  law:  Bathurst  CJ  NSWSC  “In  many  case  rules  of  procedure  may  in  fact  prove  to  be  more  important  than  substantive  law  as  civil  procedure  rules  operate  to  dictate;  

• The  manner  of  determination  of  the  facts  in  issue,  • The  law  to  be  applied,  • The  way  in  which  the  law  is  applied  to  the  facts  and  • The  available  remedies.”  

Case  management  In  the  past,  it  has  been  left  largely  to  the  parties  to  prepare  for  trial  and  to  seek  the  court’s  assistance  as  required.  Those  times  are  long  gone:  Aon  v  ANU  (2009)  

Overriding  purpose  is  that  all  civil  matters  must  facilitate  the  just,  quick  and  cheap  resolution  of  the  real  issues  in  dispute:  s  56  CPA  56  Overriding  purpose  (cf  SCR  Part  1,  rule  3)  (1)  The  overriding  purpose  of  this  Act  and  of  rules  of  court,  in  their  application  to  civil  proceedings,  is  to  facilitate  the  just,  quick  and  cheap  resolution  of  the  real  issues  in  the  proceedings.  (2)  The  court  must  seek  to  give  effect  to  the  overriding  purpose  when  it  exercises  any  power  given  to  it  by  this  Act  or  by  rules  of  court  and  when  it  interprets  any  provision  of  this  Act  or  of  any  such  rule.  (3)  A  party  to  civil  proceedings  is  under  a  duty  to  assist  the  court  to  further  the  overriding  purpose  and,  to  that  effect,  to  participate  in  the  processes  of  the  court  and  to  comply  with  directions  and  orders  of  the  court.  (4)  Each  of  the  following  persons  must  not,  by  their  conduct,  cause  a  party  to  civil  proceedings  to  be  put  in  breach  of  a  duty  identified  in  subsection  (3):  

(a)  any  solicitor  or  barrister  representing  the  party  in  the  proceedings,  

Page 18: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

18  

(b)  any  person  with  a  relevant  interest  in  the  proceedings  commenced  by  the  party.  (5)  The  court  may  take  into  account  any  failure  to  comply  with  subsection  (3)  or  (4)  in  exercising  a  discretion  with  respect  to  costs.  (6)  For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  a  person  has  a    "relevant  interest"  in  civil  proceedings  if  the  person:  

(a)  provides  financial  assistance  or  other  assistance  to  any  party  to  the  proceedings,  and  (b)  exercises  any  direct  or  indirect  control,  or  any  influence,  over  the  conduct  of  the  proceedings  or  the  conduct  of  a  party  in  respect  of  the  proceedings.  

Note:  Examples  of  persons  who  may  have  a  relevant  interest  are  insurers  and  persons  who  fund  litigation.  

Just:  

The  court  must  act  in  accordance  with  the  dictates  of  justice:  s  58  CPA  

However,  justice  is  expressed  not  only  by  the  court’s  acknowledgement  of  the  rights  of  the  parties  to  the  proceedings,  but  also  considering  the  interests  of  other  litigants  and  the  public:  Aon  v  ANU  (2009).    Facts  of  case  

Quick:  

The  efficient  disposal  of  the  business  of  the  court:  s  57  CPA  

Practice  and  procedure  being  implemented  with  the  object  of  eliminating  any  lapse  of  time:  s  59  CPA  

Cheap:  This  is  grounded  in  the  premise  that  the  judicial  system  must  be  affordable  to  afford  access  to  justice  

s  56  CPA  requires  all  litigants  in  civil  proceedings  in  NSWSC  to  act  as  model  litigants:  Priest  v  NSW  (2007)    

Rulings:  

This  all  must  be  assessed  in  reference  to  some  form  of  test  of  proportionality  

The  cost  to  the  parties  is  proportionate  to  the  importance  and  complexity  of  the  subject-­‐matter  in  dispute:  s  60  CPA  

The  concept  of  proportionality  of  costs  in  s  60  can  influence  the  demands  that  the  court  places  on  parties:  e.g.  Zanella  v  Madden  (2007)  Property  registered  in  name  of  P  and  D  as  joint  tenants  –  P  wishes  to  realize  the  land,  but  has  not  heard  of  D  for  many  years  –  P  had  paid  majority  of  the  purchase  money  by  paying  out  mortgage  –  evidence  is  that  D  has  not  been  seen  since  1980  –  D  is  originally  from  Scotland  –  could  have  organized  ads  in  Scotland,  but  when  considering  that  the  estate  is  only  $37,500,  the  cost  of  putting  such  ads  is  too  great  –  declared  dead  by  the  court,  as  such,  P  takes  full  worth  of  property  

Page 19: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

19  

The  concept  of  proportionality  of  costs  in  s  60  can  also  effect  litigation  in  other  ways:  e.g.  Vella  v  ANZ  (2008)  Where  one  is  dealing  with  a  trial  of  multiple  parties  which  must  cost  at  least  $100k  a  day,  the  court  will  not  interrupt  the  trial  to  deal  with  late  subpoenas  or  notices  to  produce  

Rules  generally:  

Uniform  Civil  Procedure  Rules  operate  in  conjunction  with  CPA,  they  are  affirmed  by  the  CPA:  s  10  CPA  This  means  that  the  rules  of  the  court  are  taken  to  include  uniform  rules  

Where  rules  are  inconsistent,  uniform  rules  will  prevail  over  any  local  rules:  s  11  CPA  This  is  unless  uniform  rule  expressly  provide  that  the  local  rules  prevail  

P’s  must  not  commence  proceedings  unless  they  are  ready  to  comply  with  the  rules:  DC  PN  1  • This  means  that  preparation  of  trial  must  be  well  advanced  before  the  filing  of  a  SOC  

In  the  Supreme  Court,  a  general  case  management  document  must  be  filed  with  originating  process:  SC  PN  5  

Court  powers  in  regards  to  non-­‐compliance  with  case  management  principles:  s  61  CPA  

Court  has  power  to  make  any  direction  it  sees  fit  for  speedy  determination  of  issues  between  parties:  subs  1  Directions  are  the  power  to  direct  parties  about  the  conduct  of  the  matter  

Non-­‐compliance  may  result  in  the  court  dismissing  or  striking  out  proceedings,  or  may  enter  judgement  or  costs  order  as  the  court  sees  appropriate:  subs  3  

This  only  occurs  where  it  is  absolutely  necessary:  see:  McCabe  for  criteria  This  is  largely  because,  if  the  judge  uses  this  power  unnecessarily,  it  will  be  considered  an  error  of  law  

r  12.7  UCPR  allows  the  court  to  entirely  dismiss  the  proceedings  based  on  lack  of  due  dispatch  by  either  party:  Phornpisutikul  v  Mileto  (2006)  D  applied  for  dismissal  of  proceedings  because  P  failed  to  submit  an  affidavit  and  other  documents  over  a  year  –  case  was  ongoing  from  before  CPA  was  established  –  most  evidence  had  to  be  gathered  from  Thailand  –  the  court  held  with  reluctance,  due  to  the  fact  that  P  was  self-­‐represented  and  the  CPA  had  come  into  operation  in  the  middle  of  this  case,  that  the  proceedings  be  dismissed  unless  P  filed  affidavits  within  1  month  

Page 20: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

20  

Practice  notes  

Creation  of  PNs:  s  15  CPA  S  15  CPA  gives  a  statutory  basis  for  the  issue  of  PNs  and  regulates  the  relationship  between  itself  and  the  UCPR  

PNs  are  subject  to  UCPR  

Embarrassing    

Embarrassing  defined:  Priest  v  NSW    A  pleading  that  is  susceptible  to  various  meanings  (ambiguous)  or  contains  inconsistent  allegations,  or  in  which  alternatives  are  confusingly  intermixed,  or  in  which  irrelevant  allegations  are  made  that  tend  to  increase  expense.  This  is  not  an  exhaustive  list  of  situations  where  pleadings  may  be  embarrassing  

Embarrassing  further  defined:  Meckiff  v  Simpson  (1968)  “The  pleading  is  unintelligible,  ambiguous,  vague  or  too  general  so  as  to  embarrass  the  opposite  party  who  does  not  know  what  is  alleged  against  him.”  

Abuse  of  process  

All  courts  have  inherent  powers  necessary  to  enable  it  to  act  effectively,  to  control  its  own  proceedings  and  prevent  abuse  of  process:  Jago  v  District  Court  of  NSW  (1989)  (for  Supreme  Court),  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  (for  lower  courts)  

To  start  proceedings  with  no  merit  whatsoever  is  an  abuse  of  process:  White  industries  v  Flower  &  Hart  (1998)  WI  had  contract  to  build  shopping  centre  –  price  discrepancies  –  client  to  WI  decided  they  didn’t  want  to  pay  any  more  money  –  sought  advice  from  lawyers  (F)  to  see  how  they  can  get  around  it  –  advice  of  F  was  that  case  was  arguable  and  rather  weak  –  nevertheless,  counsel  prepared  a  statement  of  claim  arguing  fraud  (as  a  holding  strategy  to  keep  WI  at  bay)  and  also  s  52  TPA  for  misleading  and  deceptive  conduct  –  Court  found  abuse  of  process  and  noted  that  there  is  an  ethical  obligation  on  practitioners  as  well  

Litigation  funding  is  not  an  abuse  of  process  or  contrary  to  public  policy:  Campbell’s  Cash  and  Carry  v  Fostif  (2006)  per  Gummow,  Hayne  and  Crennan  JJ  Existing  doctrines  of  abuse  of  process  and  the  courts’  ability  to  protect  their  processes  would  be  sufficient  to  deal  with  a  funder  conducting  themselves  in  a  manner  “inimical  to  the  due  administration  of  justice”  

• Mason  P  in  Court  of  Appeal  said  that  the  law  looks  favourably  on  funding  arrangements  that  offer  access  to  justice  as  long  as  any  tendency  to  abuse  of  process  is  controlled  

Page 21: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

21  

Privilege  

Dominant  purpose  test:  Esso  (1999)  If  the  dominant  purpose  is  for  legal  purpose,  then  you  have  privilege  

Affidavits  

Evidence  set  out  in  affidavits  are  an  exception  to  s  32  Evidence  Act:  Lindsay-­‐Owen  v  Lake  (2000)  per  Hodgson  CJ  i.e.  s  32  EA  says  that  a  witness  in  court  cannot  refresh  their  memory  from  documents  without  leave  of  the  court  

Contrary  to  s  59  Evidence  Act,  hearsay  evidence  is  allowed  in  interlocutory  proceedings:  s  75  Evidence  Act  

All  evidence  must  be  based  on  knowledge,  information  and  belief:  s  172  EA  Affidavit  must  set  out  the  source  of  knowledge,  information  and  belief  

Notice  of  affidavits  must  be  served  to  other  parties:  s  173  EA  

Party  A  who  tenders  affidavits  must  call  person  who  made  evidence  if  Party  B  requests,  but  doesn’t  have  to  unless  requested:  r  35.2  UCPR  

Where  deponent  has  died,  hearsay  rule  (s  59  EA)  does  not  apply  and  affidavit  may  contain  hearsay  evidence  –  obvious  this  also  means  that  the  person  also  cannot  be  called  for  cross  examination:  ss  63  and  67  Evidence  Act  

Irregularity  does  not  invalidate  affidavit:  r  35.1  UCPR  Mere  technicalities  do  not  mean  it  is  not  admissible  

If  alteration  is  made  to  a  filed  affidavit,  it  cannot  be  used  unless  person  who  swore  affidavit  initials  all  changes:  r  35.5  UCPR  

However,  best  practice  is  to  get  a  new  one  re-­‐sworn  if  the  affidavit  has  not  been  filed  as  yet,  or  re-­‐submit  a  new  one  and  withdraw  the  old  one  

Ethics  around  affidavits  –  see:  ethics  notes      

Page 22: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

22  

Pre-­‐litigation  

Alternate  Dispute  Resolution  (ADR)  

Case  management  requirements  in  Federal  Courts:  Civil  Dispute  Resolution  Act  2011  (Cth)  • Object  of  the  Act  is  to  encourages  parties  to  take  “genuine  steps”  to  resolve  certain  civil  disputes  before  commencing  in  Federal  Court  or  Federal  Magistrates  Court.  • This  is  also  a  positive  duty  to  take  reasonable  steps  to  resolve  the  dispute  or  narrow  issues  in  dispute  

o Also,  genuine  steps  to  be  set  out  in  statement  to  be  filed  at  time  of  instituting  proceedings.  (Genuine  Steps  Statement)  o Respondent  must  file  a  GSS  in  response.  

Pros  and  cons  of  ADR  Pros   Cons  Access  to  justice  –  e.g.  justice  is  more  accessible  to  those  of  limited  financial  means  

Suitability  –  may  not  be  suitable  for  every  dispute,  .e.g  precedents  to  be  set,  public  interest  case,  etc  

Faster  –  legal  proceeding  may  take  years,  ADR  may  only  take  months  or  weeks  

Lack  of  court  protections  –  if  an  ADR  solution  is  accepted,  parties  generally  give  up  court  protections,  including  right  to  a  decision  by  judge  or  jury,  etc  

Saves  time  and  money  –  for  parties  as  well  as  courts  and  government  

Lack  of  enforceability  

More  participation  –  more  chance  to  tell  their  side  of  the  story  than  as  would  in  court.  Parties  may  also  have  greater  control  over  the  outcome  

Disclosure  of  information  –  ADR  may  not  be  effective  if  it  takes  place  before  the  parties  have  sufficient  information  about  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  their  respective  cases  

Flexibility  and  creative  solutions   Cost  –  if  a  dispute  is  resolved  through  ADR  after  proceedings  have  commenced,  parties  may  have  to  put  time  and  money  into  both  ADR  and  court  hearing  

Cooperative  –  this  can  help  preserve  relationships   Delay  –  ADR  adds  an  extra  step,  which  might  cause  a  delay  

Less  stress   Fairness  –  procedural  rules  that  govern  court  proceedings  as  safeguards  for  fairness  are  not  necessarily  included  in  ADR  

Confidentiality   Power  imbalances  –  ADR  doesn’t  really  work  if  one  party  is  stronger  than  the  other  

Statistically  good  results  –  settlement  rates  are  between   Delaying  tactics  –  ADR  is  sometimes  used  as  a  delaying  

Page 23: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

23  

50-­‐85%   tactic  before  proceeding  to  litigation  More  satisfying  for  parties   Inequality  –  like  power  imbalances,  the  capacity  to  

bargain  effectively  is  difficult  where  there  are  power  imbalances  

 Definitional  stage  

Ethical  constraints  on  lawyers  

There  is  an  ethical  requirement  on  lawyers  to  be  timely  and  efficient  in  their  contact  of  litigation:  rr  A.15-­‐A.15B,  Advocacy  Rules  in  the  Revised  Processional  Conduct  and  Practice  Rules  1995  See  also  rr  56-­‐59,  NSW  Barristers’  Rules  

There  must  be  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s  345  LPA  

Certificate  asserting  the  reasonable  prospects  of  success  must  be  signed  by  solicitor:  s  347  LPA  

Reasonable  prospects  of  success  is  defined  by  the  basis  of  provable  facts  and  a  reasonably  arguable  view  of  the  law  

For  P,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  prospect  of  damages  being  recovered  on  the  claim:  s  345(1)  LPA  

For  D,  there  must  be  a  reasonable  prospect  of  the  defence  defeating  the  claim  or  leading  to  a  reduction  in  the  damages  recovered  on  the  claim:  s  345(4)  LPA  

To  start  proceedings  with  no  merit  whatsoever  is  an  abuse  of  process:  White  industries  v  Flower  &  Hart  (1998)  WI  had  contract  to  build  shopping  centre  –  price  discrepancies  –  client  to  WI  decided  they  didn’t  want  to  pay  any  more  money  –  sought  advice  from  lawyers  (F)  to  see  how  they  can  get  around  it  –  advice  of  F  was  that  case  was  arguable  and  rather  weak  –  nevertheless,  counsel  prepared  a  statement  of  claim  arguing  fraud  (as  a  holding  strategy  to  keep  WI  at  bay)  and  also  s  52  TPA  for  misleading  and  deceptive  conduct  –  Court  found  abuse  of  process  and  noted  that  there  is  an  ethical  obligation  on  practitioners  as  well  

Must  facilitate  proceedings  to  be  just,  quick  and  cheap:  s  56  CPA  

Non-­‐compliance  may  result  in  costs  orders  against  lawyers:  s  99  CPA  

Page 24: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

24  

Commencing  proceedings  

 Step   What  to  do   Who?  1   In  writing,  inform  P  of  the  requirements  under  the  District  Court  Practice  Note  1  (DC  PN  1)  before  commencing  proceedings  or  filing  

a  dispute  PS  

2   Commence  proceedings  by  either:  • Statement  of  Claim  (SOC):  must  comply  with  rr  6.2,  6.12,  6.13  UCPR  

o Must  include  certificate  signed  by  PS  that  P’s  case  has  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s.  347  LPA  

P/PS  

3   Service  on  D  –  must  serve  the  following  documents:  • SOC:  r.  15.12(3)  UCPR  • Documentary  evidence:  r.  15.12(2)  UCPR  • Timetable  for  future  conduct:  cl.  3.1  DC  PN  1  

These  documents  must  be  served  within  one  month  from  date  filed:  r.  6.2(4)(b)  UCPR  

P/PS  

4   Defence  • Must  be  filed  within  28  days  of  service  by:  

o Notice  of  appearance:  r.  6.9  UCPR;  or  o Defence:  r.  14.3  UCPR  

• Must  also  include  certificate  signed  by  DS  that  D’s  case  has  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s.  347  LPA  If  further  particulars  required,  request  before  filing  a  defence  –  instead,  seek  an  order  by  the  court  to  extend  the  return  date  to  be  after  28  days:  r.  14.3(1)  UCPR    N.B.  also  consider  limitations  as  a  defence  –  has  P  filed  outside  the  statutory  limitation  periods?  

D  

5   If  D  does  not  file  in  time,  P  may  apply  for  an  order  for  judgement:  r.  13.1  • However,  to  do  so,  P  must  make  sure  they  consent  to  any  extension  of  time  requested  by  D  in  their  filing  of  defence  

P/PS  

6   Cross  claim  –  must  be  filed  the  same  time  as  defence  • Must  also  include  certificate  signed  by  DS  that  D’s  case  has  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s.  347  LPA  • Also,  D  must  serve  all  copies  of  pleadings  filed  to  date:  r.  9.7  

D  

7   Defence  to  cross  claim  –  operates  the  same  way  as  Step  4:  rr.  9.4  and  9.5  UCPR  • Must  also  include  certificate  signed  by  CDS  that  CD’s  case  has  reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s.  347  LPA  

CD  

8   Subpoenas  –  must  file  to  3rd  parties  as  soon  as  possible:  cl.  6.1  DC  PN  1   All  

Things  to  consider  before  starting  this  process:  -­‐  Reasonable  prospects  of  success:  s.  347  LPA  -­‐  Limitation  periods  -­‐  Summons  or  SOC?  -­‐  Jurisdiction/Cross-­‐vesting  -­‐  Interlocutory  proceedings  -­‐  Alternative  Dispute  Resolution  -­‐  Mediation  -­‐  Subpoenas  -­‐  Notices  to  produce  -­‐  Case  management  

Legend:  

P  =  Plaintiff  

D  =  Defendant  

CD  =  Cross  Defendant  

PS  =  P’s  Solicitor    

DS  =  D’s  Solicitor  

CDS  =  CD’s  solicitor  

Things  to  consider  once  a  SOC  has  been  filed:  -­‐  Interlocutory  proceedings  -­‐  Cross  vesting  -­‐  Particulars  -­‐  Judgement  before  trial  –  in  some  instances,  this  means  “show  cause  hearings”  are  relevant  also  -­‐  Discovery  -­‐  Subpoenas  -­‐  Notices  to  produce  -­‐  Affidavits  -­‐  Case  management  

   

Page 25: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

25  

Who  are  the  parties?  Parties  must  be  precisely  defined  or  the  action  may  be  dismissed  from  the  beginning  –  the  court  will  say  that  the  action  has  not  the  merit  to  enter  into  this  jurisdiction  

A  “person  under  legal  incapacity”  

A  person  under  a  legal  incapacity  may  not  commence  or  carry  on  proceedings  except  by  his  or  her  tutor:  r  7.14(1)  UCPR  

Further,  unless  the  court  orders  otherwise,  the  tutor  of  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  may  not  commence  or  carry  on  proceedings  except  by  a  solicitor:  r  7.14(2)  UCPR  Anything  that  the  UCPR  authorises  or  requires  a  party  to  do  in  relation  to  the  conduct  of  proceedings  may,  if  the  party  is  a  person  under  legal  incapacity,  be  done  on  his  or  her  behalf  by  his  or  her  tutor:  r  7.15(6)  UCPR  

“Person  under  legal  incapacity”  defined  A  person  will  be  considered  a  “person  under  a  legal  incapacity”  if  they  are:  

a) A  child  under  the  age  of  18  years  (Civil  Procedure  Act,  s  3(1)(a))  b) An  involuntary  patient  or  a  forensic  patient  (Civil  Procedure  Act,  s  3(1)(b))  c) A  person  under  guardianship  (Civil  Procedure  Act,  s  3(1)(c))  d) A  protected  person  within  the  meaning  of  the  Protected  Estates  Act  1893  (Civil  Procedure  Act,  s  3(1)(d))  e) An  incommunicate  person,  being  a  person  who  has  such  a  physical  or  mental  disability  that  he  or  she  is  unable  to  receive  communications,  or  express  his  or  her  will,  

with  respect  to  his  or  her  property  or  affairs  (Civil  Procedure  Act,  s  3(1)(e))  

Any  person  (other  than  a  corporation)  is  eligible  to  be  the  tutor  of  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  other  than  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(a)),  a  judicial  officer  or  registrar  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(b)),  or  a  person  who  has  interest  in  the  proceedings  (UCPR,  r  7.15(2)(c))  A  person  may  become  the  tutor  of  a  person  without  the  need  for  any  formal  instrument  of  appointment  or  any  order  of  a  court  (UCPR,  r  7.15(1)).  

• However,  a  person  may  not  replace  another  person  as  tutor  except  by  order  of  the  court  (UCPR,  r  7.15(5)).  

Documents  required  to  validly  appoint  a  tutor  a) The  tutor’s  consent  to  act  as  tutor  (UCPR,  r  7.16(a)).  This  document  must  be  duly  executed  and  authenticated  (UCPR,  r  31.15(1)(b)),  meaning  that  the  document  

must  be  signed  by  the  consenting  person  and  the  signature  is  verified  by  some  other  person  (UCPR  31.15(2)(a))  b) A  certificate,  signed  by  the  tutor’s  solicitor  in  the  proceedings,  to  the  effect  that  the  tutor  does  not  have  any  interest  in  the  proceedings  adverse  to  the  interests  of  

the  person  under  legal  incapacity  (UCPR,  r  7.16(b))  

Standing?  P  must  be  a  person  aggrieved  or  have  a  special  interest  before  they  have  standing  to  commence  proceedings  

Page 26: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

26  

Also  consider:  

Are  legal  entities  correct?  • Consider  citizenship,  companies  (company  or  company  name?),  directors  • Undertake  detailed  and  careful  inquiries  to  ensure  you  have  the  right  company,  owner  or  the  party  responsible  for  the  premises,  etc    • Greenwood  v  Papademetri  (2007)  –  for  what  not  to  do  

o In  this  case,  P  did  not  have  standing,  all  parties  were  not  legal  entities,  the  correct  D  was  not  sued  and  P  did  not  plead  a  cause  of  action  against  each  named  D  

Correct  defendant?  Ensure  you  are  suing  the  correct  D  • Who  caused  the  breach,  but  may  not  be  liable  (e.g.  principal  and  agent  relationship)  

o Also,  the  state  cannot  be  sued  under  the  ACL  

Preliminary  discovery  –  it  must  occur  in  the  initial  process:  Pt  5  UCPR  • Preliminary  discovery  cannot  be  used  once  the  matter  is  on  foot  • Discovery  of  documents  (r  5.2)  can  assist  in  obtaining  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  a  potential  D  

Discovery  for  prospective  D’s  identity  and  whereabouts  

The  court  may  make  either  or  both  of  the  following  orders  against  other  person  in  relation  to  discovery  to  ascertain  this  a) An  order  that  the  other  person  attend  the  court  to  be  examined  as  to  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  the  person  concerned  (UCPR,  r  5.2(2)(a))  b) An  order  that  the  other  person  must  give  discovery  to  the  applicant  of  all  documents  that  are  or  have  been  in  the  other  person’s  possession  and  that  relate  to  the  

identity  or  whereabouts  of  the  person  concerned  (UCPR,  r  5.2(2)(b))  

However,  the  court  will  only  have  the  power  to  make  such  an  order  where  an  applicant  has  made  “reasonable  enquiries”  and  is  unable  to  ascertain  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  a  person  needed  for  the  purpose  of  commencing  proceedings  against  them  (UCPR,  r  5.2(1)(a))  Some  person  other  than  the  applicant  may  have  information  or  have  had  possession  of  a  document  or  thing  that  tends  to  assist  in  ascertaining  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  the  person  concerned  (UCPR,  r  5.2(1)(b)).  

Where  applicant  makes  argument  and  satisfies  the  court  that  to  make  reasonable  inquiries  is  expensive  and  unreasonably  time  consuming,  the  court  may  not  require  the  person  to  have  made  these  inquiries:  RTA  v  Australian  National  Car  Parks  (2007)  This  case  relates  to  an  application  under  r  5.2(1)(a)  UCPR  Preliminary  Discovery  by  D  seeking  from  RTA  details  of  registered  owners  for  a  number  of  vehicles  –  RTA  contended  that  application  should  be  refused  because  D  was  side-­‐stepping  procedures  for  preliminary  discovery,  that  D  did  not  make  “reasonable  inquiries”  –  the  court  found  that,  simply  because  there  were  other  modes  of  ascertaining  the  information  does  not  mean  that  D  had  failed  to  make  reasonable  enquiries  –  the  alternative  would  involve  high  cost  and  delay  and  would  be  unreasonable  where  preliminary  discovery  provides  a  simpler  option  –  no  ground  of  appeal  on  this  basis  

Page 27: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

27  

Application  for  preliminary  discovery  An  application  for  an  order  requiring  a  person  to  provide  you  with  information  or  documents  relating  to  the  identity  or  whereabouts  of  a  prospective  defendant  is  to  be  made:  

a) If  it  is  made  in  relation  to  proceedings  in  which  the  applicant  is  a  party,  by  notice  of  motion  in  the  proceedings  (UCPR,  r  6.2(8)(a))  b) In  any  other  case,  by  summons  (UCPR,  r  6.2(8)(b))  

An  application  must  be  supported  by  an  affidavit  stating  facts  on  which  applicants  relies  and  specifying  information,  documents  or  things  in  respect  of  which  order  is  sought:  s  6.2(7)(a)  UCPR  

A  NOM  must  also  be  served  on  each  person  effected  by  proposed  order:  r  18.2  UCPR  

A  summons  (r  6.2(3))  and  affidavit  (r  5.2(7)(b))  must  be  personally  served  on  other  person  

Notice  must  be  personally  served  where  person  is  not  party  to  proceedings  (r  18.5(a))  or  is  party  to  proceedings  but  not  active  (r  18.5(b))  

Discovery  to  determine  whether  there  is  sufficient  information  to  commence  proceedings  against  D  

This  application  is  made  by  summons:  r  6.4(1)(c)  UCPR  It  must  be  supported  by  an  affidavit  stating  the  facts  and  the  kinds  of  documents  applicant  is  seeking:  r  5.3(3)(a)  UCPR  

The  application  must  satisfy  the  court  that  applicant  has  made  “reasonable  inquiries”  –  this  is  a  question  of  fact  which  is  dependent  on  the  circumstances  of  the  case:  Steffen  v  ANZ  (2009)  Making  reasonable  inquiries  include  sending  a  letter,  making  a  phone  call  or  emailing.    

The  application  must  also  satisfy  the  court  that  the  purpose  of  inspecting  documents  is  to  give  applicant  sufficient  information  that  it  “reasonably  needs  to  enable  it  to  decide  whether  to  commence  a  proceeding”:  Alphapharm  v  Eli  Lilly  (1996)  The  evidence  only  needs  to  establish  “a  tenable  objective  basis  for  its  belief”:  Optiver  v  Tibra  (2012)  

Three  situations  where  the  Court  may  order  discovery    a) The  applicant  may  be  entitled  to  make  a  claim  for  relief  from  the  court  against  a  person  but,  having  made  reasonable  inquiries,  is  unable  to  obtain  sufficient  

information  to  decide  whether  or  not  to  commence  proceedings  against  the  prospective  defendant  (UCPR,  r  5.3(1)(a))  b) The  prospective  defendant  may  have  or  have  had  possession  of  a  document  or  thing  that  can  assist  in  determining  whether  or  not  the  applicant  is  entitled  to  make  

such  a  claim  for  relief  (UCPR,  r  5.3(1)(b))  c) Inspection  of  such  a  document  would  assist  the  applicant  to  make  the  decision  concerned  (UCPR,  r  5.3(1)(c))  

Joining  proceedings:  Pt  6,  UCPR  

If  there  are  multiple  D’s,  ensure  there  is  a  cause  of  action  against  EACH  defendant  P  must  plead  a  clear  cause  of  action  against  each  D  individually  

Page 28: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

28  

Consider  joinders  if  there  are  overlapping  causes  of  action,  defendants  or  even  plaintiffs  • There  are  incentives  to  join  all  causes  of  action  and  parties  in  one  proceedings  that  must  be  taken  into  account:  Dow  Jones  v  Gutnick  (2002)  per  Gleeson  CJ,  

McHugh,  Gummow  and  Hayne  JJ  –  it  is  from  this  principle  that  res  judicata  arises  • The  benefits  include  quick  and  cheap  solutions,  which  is  just  for  the  community:  Bray  v  F  Hoffmann-­‐La  Roche  (2003)  

o However,  where  the  resulting  litigation  gives  rise  to  claims  that  are  too  disparate  or  the  COA  are  too  great,  the  efficiencies  are  lost  

Types  of  joinders  

Key  is  based  on  the  relevant  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980)  

Meaning  of  transaction  is  not  limited  to  a  contractual  transaction:  Bendir  v  Anson  (1936)  “The  word  “transaction”,  I  think,  necessarily  mean  an  act,  the  effect  of  which  extends  beyond  the  agent  to  other  persons”  

In  dicta  arising  out  of  a  hypothetical  context,  Birtles  v  Cth  (1960)  gave  a  broader  interpretation  of  “transaction”  P  was  digging  a  hole  at  work  –  used  crowbar  that  contacted  a  high  voltage  cable  –  received  an  electric  shock  –  sued  occupier  of  land  (D),  state  electricity  commission  (SEC)  and  employer  –  all  Ds  claimed  relevant  limitation  period  expired  –  SEC  also  clamed  that  it  was  not  served  –  after  defences,  P  fired  solicitor  (S1),  hired  new  solicitor  (S2)  and  sought  to  add  S2  as  a  D  in  alternative  –  court  hypotehsised  that  actions  of  S1  might  be  included  in  the  same  series  of  transactions  had  P  sought  to  join  S1  when  he  commenced  proceedings  

This  was  all  reined  in  with  Payne  v  Young  

Joining  of  parties:  rr  6.19-­‐6.28  

Court  powers  to  remove  joinder  

Where  parties  are  improperly  or  unneceesarily  joined,  or  where  joinder  is  no  longer  necessary  or  proper,  court  can  remove  the  offending  party:  r  6.29  UCPR  

Where  a  joinder  of  any  kind  is  embarrassing,  inconvenient  or  causes  delay  in  the  proceedings,  the  court  can  separate  and  order  separate  trials  as  the  court  sees  fit  (r  6.22(a)  UCPR)  or  make  another  order  the  court  sees  fit  (r  6.22(a)  UCPR)  

• Such  decisions  must  take  into  account  the  overriding  principles  in  ss  56-­‐60  CPA  

Joining  Ps  

An  application  for  joinder  of  Ps  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)    

Page 29: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

29  

Criteria  

Joinder  must  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980),  r  6.19(1)(b)  UCPR  P  sought  to  rely  on  joinder  of  all  abattoir  owners  contesting  validity  of  fees  imposed  by  WA  Govt  –  fees  were  found  by  Court  to  be  calculated  according  to  different  sales  and  differing  amounts  of  payments  that  were  made  to  different  Ds  –  court  found  that  the  transactions  were  similar,  but  were  not  the  same  series  of  transactions  

The  trials,  if  considered  separately,  would  result  in  common  questions  of  law  and  fact:  r  6.19(1)(a)  UCPR  

Even  where  these  conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  the  court  has  discretion  to  grant  leave  for  Ps  to  join  in  the  same  proceedings:  r  6.19  UCPR  • This  can  occur  before  or  after  proceedings  have  commenced:  r  6.19(2)  UCPR  

For  judicial  discretion,  the  court  should  consider  the  overriding  purpose  of  ss  56-­‐60  CPA:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  v  Air  Transit  International  (2002)  This  is  particularly  so  where  the  proceedings  can  be  handled  in  such  a  way  that  overcomes  the  issues  that  would  rise  to  one  person  as  a  result  of  a  joinder:  ASIC  v  Sommerville  (2009)  

Once  considered,  they  must  do  a  balancing  exercise  to  weigh  up  advantages  and  disadvantages  to  P  Case  was  an  application  by  liquidator  to  join  all  proceedings  under  the  “mother  proceeding”:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  

• Leave  should  not  be  granted  if  it  will  result  in  unfairness  to  one  party  and  will  look  to  the  practicality  of  granting  leave:  Bishop  v  Bridgelands  (1990)  

Consent  must  be  given  before  a  party  is  joined:  r  6.25  UCPR  • Where  different  people  are  jointly  entitled  to  the  same  relief,  all  should  be  joined  at  Ps:  r  6.20(2)(a)  UCPR  

o However,  where  one  of  those  is  not  prepared  to  consent  to  be  joined  as  P,  that  party  can  be  joined  at  a  D:  r  6.20(2)(b)  UCPR  

Joining  Ds  

An  application  for  joinder  of  Ps  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)  

Criteria  

Joinder  must  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  or  the  same  series  of  transactions:  Payne  v  Young  (1980),  r  6.19(1)(b)  UCPR  P  sought  to  rely  on  joinder  of  all  abattoir  owners  contesting  validity  of  fees  imposed  by  WA  Govt  –  fees  were  found  by  Court  to  be  calculated  according  to  different  sales  and  differing  amounts  of  payments  that  were  made  to  different  Ds  –  court  found  that  the  transactions  were  similar,  but  were  not  the  same  series  of  transactionsThe  trials,  if  separated,  would  result  in  common  questions  of  law  and  fact  

Even  where  these  conditions  are  not  fulfilled,  the  court  has  discretion  to  grant  leave  for  Ds  to  join  in  the  same  proceedings:  r  6.19  UCPR  • This  can  occur  before  or  after  proceedings  have  commenced:  r  6.19(2)  UCPR  

Page 30: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

30  

For  judicial  discretion,  the  court  should  consider  the  overriding  purpose  of  ss  56-­‐60  CPA:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  v  Air  Transit  International  (2002)  This  is  particularly  so  where  the  proceedings  can  be  handled  in  such  a  way  that  overcomes  the  issues  that  would  rise  to  one  person  as  a  result  of  a  joinder:  ASIC  v  Sommerville  (2009)  

Once  considered,  they  must  do  a  balancing  exercise  to  weigh  up  advantages  and  disadvantages  to  D  Case  was  an  application  by  liquidator  to  join  all  proceedings  under  the  “mother  proceeding”:  Dean-­‐Wilcocks  

• Leave  should  not  be  granted  if  it  will  result  in  unfairness  to  one  party  and  will  look  to  the  practicality  of  granting  leave:  Bishop  v  Bridgelands  (1990)  

Consent  must  be  given  before  a  party  is  joined:  r  6.25  UCPR  • Where  different  people  are  jointly  entitled  to  the  same  relief,  all  should  be  joined  at  Ps:  r  6.20(2)(a)  UCPR  

o However,  where  one  of  those  is  not  prepared  to  consent  to  be  joined  as  P,  that  party  can  be  joined  at  a  D:  r  6.20(2)(b)  UCPR  

All  jointly  liable  Ds  must  be  sued  in  the  same  proceedings  and  the  court  can  order  proceedings  be  stayed  until  all  joint  Ds  are  parties:  r  6.21(2)  UCPR  

Even  where  P  is  not  too  sure  which  party  is  liable  to  him,  Ds  can  be  joined  in  the  same  proceedings.  If  the  court  thinks  its  reasonable  that  P  joined  successful  D  because  of  the  accusation  of  unsuccessful  D,  Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  may  be  appropriate  

Causes  of  action  do  not  have  to  be  the  same  –  they  can  joint,  several  or  in  the  alternative  

Retrospective  joinders:  rr  6.19(2)  and  6.24  UCPR  

Leave  can  be  granted  for  parties  to  join  other  parties  after  proceedings  have  commenced:  r  6.19(2)  

The  court  may  order  parties  to  be  joined  to  proceedings  if  they  feel  the  party  ought  to  be  joined,  or  it’s  joinder  is  necessary  to  the  determination  of  the  proceedings:  r  6.24  

This  includes  non-­‐party  who  is  in  possession  of  whole  or  part  of  land  that  is  in  dispute  in  the  proceedings  may  be  added  as  a  D:  r  6.24(2)  

If  the  joinder  is  ordered/granted,  the  date  of  commencement  of  proceedings  for  that  party  is  the  day  in  which  order  is  made:  r  6.28  UCPR  

Removal  of  joint  parties  

The  court  may  order  a  party  improperly  or  unnecessarily  joined  (r  6.29(a)  UCPR),  or  has  ceased  to  be  proper  or  necessary  to  the  proceedings  (r  6.29(b)  UCPR)  to  be  removed  as  a  party    

Page 31: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

31  

Joinder  of  causes  of  action:  rr  6.18-­‐6.22  Multiple  causes  of  actions  can  be  joined  in  the  same  proceedings  

Causes  of  action  can  be  joined  as  long  as  one  of  the  following  is  satisfied:  

Capacity  of  P  and  D  are  within  one  of  r  6.18(1)(a)-­‐(c)  UCPR  (a) if  the  plaintiff  sues  in  the  same  capacity,  and  claims  the  defendant  to  be  liable  in  the  same  capacity,  in  respect  of  each  cause  of  action,  (b) if  the  plaintiff  sues:  

i. in  his  or  her  capacity  as  executor  of  the  will  of  a  deceased  person,  or  administrator  of  the  estate  of  a  deceased  person,  in  respect  of  one  or  more  of  the  causes  of  action,  and  

ii. in  his  or  her  personal  capacity,  but  with  reference  to  the  estate  of  the  same  deceased  person,  in  respect  of  the  remaining  causes  of  action,  (c) if  the  plaintiff  claims  the  defendant  to  be  liable:  

i. in  his  or  her  capacity  as  executor  of  the  will  of  a  deceased  person,  or  administrator  of  the  estate  of  a  deceased  person,  in  respect  of  one  or  more  of  the  causes  of  action,  and  

ii. in  his  or  her  personal  capacity,  and  in  relation  to  the  estate  of  the  same  deceased  person,  in  respect  of  the  remaining  causes  of  action,  

Court  grants  leave:  r  6.18(1)(d)  This  discretion  must  take  into  account  s  56  CPA  

An  application  for  joinder  of  COAs  requires  SOC  or  summons  (rr  6.3  or  6.4  UCPR),  depending  on  circumstances  of  the  case  –  this  also  requires  a  notice  of  motion  (r  18.2  UCPR)  and  affidavit  (r  31.2  UCPR)  

Class/Representative  actions:  Pt  10  CPA  • Enables  claims  of  a  number  of  persons  against  the  same  D  to  be  determined  in  one  suit  • Ps  are  quasi-­‐separate  –  one  name  leads  

Essential  requirements:    1. 7  or  more  persons  have  claims  against  the  same  person:  s  157(1)(a)  CPA  

o A  person  is  considered  to  have  sufficient  interest  (i.e.  standing)  to  commence  representative  proceedings  against  another  person  on  behalf  of  other  persons  if  they  have  standing  to  commence  proceedings  on  the  person’s  own  behalf  against  that  other  person:  s  158(1)  CPA  

2. Claims  arise  out  of  the  same  or  very  similar  circumstances:  s  157(1)(b)  CPA  3. Claims  give  rise  to  substantial  common  questions  of  law  or  fact:  s  157(1)(c)  CPA  

Representative  actions  may  be  commenced  against  more  than  one  D,  irrespective  of  whether  or  not  each  person  has  a  claim  against  every  D:  s  158(2)  CPA  This  provision  was  specifically  adopted  to  overcome  the  decision  in  Philip  Morris  v  Nixon  (2000)  

Page 32: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

32  

Applications  must  follow  form  as  outlined  in  PN  SC  Gen  17  

Notice  requirements  also  apply:  ss  175-­‐176  CPA  

Notices  must  be  accurate  and  not  mislead  group  members:  Courtney  v  Medtel  (2001)  “…  Any  opt-­‐out  notice  should  be  framed  as  not  to  cause  unnecessary  alarm  or  distress  to  intended  recipients…  notices  must  be  accurate  but  should  be  drafted  with  sensitivity”  

Litigation  funding  is  not  an  abuse  of  process  or  contrary  to  public  policy:  Campbells  Cash  and  Carry  v  Fostif  (2006)  per  Gummow,  Hayne  and  Crennan  JJ  Existing  doctinres  of  abuse  of  process  and  the  courts’  ability  to  protect  their  processes  would  be  sufficient  to  deal  with  a  funder  conducting  themselves  in  a  manner  “inimical  to  the  due  administration  of  justice”  

o Mason  P  in  Court  of  Appeal  said  that  the  law  looks  favourably  on  funding  arrangements  that  offer  access  to  justice  as  long  as  any  tendency  to  abuse  of  process  is  controlled  

Interlocutory  proceedings  These  are  orders  that  dictate  how  proceedings  will  be  conducted  and,  in  some  instances,  may  be  used  to  preserve  a  situation  

A  judgement  is  interlocutory  where  an  order  determines  final  rights  of  an  matter  pending  between  two  parties:  Anshun  

Types  of  interlocutory  orders  • Injunctions  • Striking  out  order:  Pye  v  Renshaw  (1951)  • Order  refusing  extension  of  time:  Hall  v  Nominal  Defendant  • Order  setting  aside  an  order  for  substituted  service:  Licul  v  Corney  (1976)  • Refusing  to  set  aside  default  judgement:  Carr  v  FCA  • Order  staying  an  action  as  an  abuse  of  process:  Anshun  No  1  

Interlocutory  applications  are  done  by  filing  a  notice  of  motion:  Pt  18  UCPR  

Notice  must  be  filed  on  each  party  and  be  accompanied  with  an  affidavit:  r  18.1  UCPR  

Generally  NOM  must  be  filed  (r  18.2(1)  UCPR),  but  does  not  need  to  in  the  following  situations  (r  18.2(2)  UCPR)  

(a) that  person  consents  to  the  making  of  the  order,  or    

Page 33: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

33  

(b) the  preparation,  filing  or  service  of  the  notice  would  cause  undue  delay  or  other  prejudice  to  the  person  by  whom  the  order  is  sought,  or  

(c) the  court  dispenses  with  the  requirement  for  such  notice  to  be  filed  or  served,  or  

(d) under  these  rules  or  the  practice  of  the  court,  the  motion  may  be  made  without  the  prior  filing  or  service  (as  the  case  may  be)  of  notice  of  motion.  

NOM  must  be  served  at  least  3  days  before  date  fixed  for  motion:  r  18.4  UCPR  Calculate  as  per  r  1.11,  i.e.  If  order  is  made,  don’t  take  into  account  the  day  order  was  made.  If  less  than  5  days  and  a  day  or  part  of  the  day  where  registry  is  closed  (e.g.  public  holidays,  weekends,  etc),  that  day  is  excluded  –  “clear  days”  

NOM  must  be  personally  served  on  those  who  have  not  entered  an  appearance:  r  18.5  UCPR  i.e.  they  are  either  not  a  party  to  proceedings  (subs  a)  or  not  an  active  party  to  proceedings  (subs  b)  

Where  NOM  has  been  correctly  served,  matter  may  be  dealt  with  in  either  party’s  absence:  r  18.7  UCPR  

Directions  as  to  a  result  of  an  interlocutory  hearing  is  made  under  r  18.9  UCPR  

N.B.  in  regards  to  hearsay  evidence,  contrary  to  s  59  Evidence  Act,  hearsay  evidence  is  allowed  in  interlocutory  proceedings:  s  75  Evidence  Act  

Interim  preservation  orders  –  may  be  used  before  or  after  action  is  commenced  

Injunctive  relief:  r  25.2(1)(c)  UCPR  

To  do  so,  applicant  must  show  a  “PF  case”  and  that  “balance  of  convenience”  favours  the  order  being  made:  Apple  v  Samsung  (2011)  However,  this  case  was  appealed  and  the  injunction  was  discharged  

Federal  Court  has  power  to  make  such  injunctions  as  the  court  “has  power,  in  relation  to  matters  in  which  it  has  jurisdiction,  to  make  orders  of  such  kinds…  that  the  Court  thinks  appropriate”:  s  23  Federal  Court  Act  1976  (Cth)  

Supreme  Court  has  power  to  do  so  at  any  stage  of  proceedings  where  it  is  just  or  convenient  to  do  so  by  inherent  jurisdiction  and  s  66(4)  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  (NSW)    

Page 34: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

34  

District  Court  has  limited  power  to  grant  temporary  injunctions  for  a  period  not  exceeding  14  days  to  enable  Supreme  Court  proceedings  to  be  commenced:  s  141  District  Court  Act  1973  (NSW)  

For  an  interlocutory  injunction  to  succeed,  applicant  needs  to  satisfy  the  court  that  he  has  a  PF  case,  as  well  as  satisfying  the  court  that  the  inconvenience  or  injury  experienced  by  applicant  outweighs  the  inconvenience  or  injury  to  the  other  party  if  injuction  were  granted:  Beecham  v  Bristol  (1968)  

PF  case  means  that  application  can  show  a  sufficient  likelihood  of  success  to  justify  the  circumstances,  rather  than  application  must  show  it  is  more  probably  than  not  that,  at  trial,  they  will  succeed:  ACB  v  O’Neill  (2006)  Interlocutory  injunction  to  prevent  ABC  from  screening  a  doco  that  implies  that  O’Neill,  convicted  child  murderer,  was  responsible  for  the  disappearance  of  the  Beaumont  children  

Parties  seeking  injunctions  are  usually  required  to  give  an  undertaking  as  to  damages:  r  25.8  UCPR  

However,  the  court  cannot  compel  the  giving  of  an  undertaking,  but  it  may  refuse  application  for  interlocutory  relief  unless  undertaking  is  offered:  Tucker  v  New  Brunswick  (1890)s  

Orders  for  preservation  of  property:  r  25.3  UCPR  

Orders  for  disposal  of  perishable  property:  r  25.4  UCPR  

Orders  for  interim  distribution  of  property  or  income  surplus  to  the  subject  matter  of  proceedings:  rr  25.5-­‐25.6  UCPR  

Orders  for  payment  of  shares  in  a  fund  before  all  interested  parties  are  determined:  r  25.7  UCPR  

Freezing  orders  (Mareva  injunctions):  r  25.11  and  25.14  UCPR  and  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  A  Mareva  injunction  prevents  a  party  from  disposing  of  assets  to  frustrate  the  enforcement  of  a  judgement  –  P  sued  D  for  breach  of  s  52  TPA  and  applied  to  FCA  for  order  that  D  pay  $3  mil  as  security  –  court  found  P  had  good  chance  of  success  and  ordered  D  to  provide  security  –  D  appealed  –  HCA  found  that  the  order  should  not  have  been  made,  but  recognised  the  court’s  power  to  grant  Mareva  injunctions  

For  lower  courts,  this  power  comes  from  the  court’s  inherent  equitable  jurisdiction:  Jackson  v  Sterling  (1987)  For  inherent  power  of  the  court  to  prevent  an  abuse  of  its  own  process  

• For  Superior  courts,  the  general  grants  of  statutory  powers  provide  superior  courts  the  power  to  make  interlocutory  orders  where  just  or  appropriate  

Page 35: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

35  

An  application  should  comply  with  PN  SC  Gen  14  

Search  orders  (Anton  Piller  orders):  r  25.19  UCPR  Anton  Piller  orders  authorise  seizure  of  documents  or  other  evidence.  The  purpose  is  to  preserve  evidence  required  to  prove  applicant’s  claim  and  which  is  in  danger  of  being  destroyed  

Anton  Piller  orders  are  obtained  on  an  ex  parte  basis  This  means  that  respondent  does  not  have  any  notice  and  its  obtained  by  the  applicant  in  the  respondent’s  absence  

Elements  to  be  satisfied  to  succeed  in  obtaining  an  Anton  Piller  order:  Austress  Freyssinet  v  Joesph  (2006)  1) Applicant  seeking  order  has  a  strong  PF  case  on  an  accrued  cause  of  action;  and  2) Potential  or  actual  loss  or  damage  to  applicant  will  be  serious  if  search  order  not  made;  and  3) Sufficient  evidence  in  relation  to  the  respondent  that;  

a. Respondent  possesses  important  evidentiary  material;  and  b. Real  possibility  that  respondent  may  destroy  material  

An  application  should  comply  with  PN  SC  Gen  13  

Does  your  client  understand  the  costs  and  implications  of  commencing  proceedings?  • i.e.  formal  concept  of  costs,  cost/benefit  perspectives,  costs  of  court,  lawyers,  if  one  loses,  if  wins  • Also,  the  physical,  social,  environmental  costs  • Also,  cost  of  time  

o Implications  of  commencing  proceedings  –  filing  costs,  need  money  to  even  start  the  matter,  delays  

Is  it  worth  suing  the  other  party?  i.e.  will  they  be  able  to  pay  up?  

Limitation  periods  

Purpose  of  imposing  limitation  periods  “Where  there  is  delay,  the  whole  quality  of  justice  deteriorates”:  R  v  Lawrence  (1982)  per  Lord  Hailsham  of  St  Marylebone  LC  

Four  broad  rationales  for  limitation  periods:  Brisbane  South  Regional  Health  v  Taylor  (1996)  per  HcMugh  J  1) As  time  goes  by,  relevant  evidence  is  likely  to  be  lost  2) It  is  oppressive,  even  “cruel”  to  D  to  allow  an  action  to  be  brought  long  after  circumstances  which  gave  rise  to  it  have  passed  3) People  should  be  able  to  arrange  their  affairs  and  utilise  their  resources  on  the  basis  that  claims  can  no  longer  be  made  against  them  4) Public  interest  requires  that  disputes  be  settled  as  quickly  as  possible  

Page 36: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

36  

 When  do  the  time  limits  commence?  Does  it  commence  from  when  the  action  occurred  or  when  they  engaged  you?  Or  when  the  action  has  been  lodged  in  court?  

Limitations  are  substantive  law:  John  Pfeiffer  v  Rogerson  (2000)  Limitation  periods  are  a  matter  of  substantive,  not  procedural,  law  and  are  governed  by  the  law  that  governs  the  cause  of  action  

Limitation  periods:  Limitation  Act  1969  (NSW)  Cause  of  action   Period  Contract   6  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  14(1)(a)  Tort  general   6  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  14(1)(b)  Breach  of  trust  or  recovery  of  trust  properties   6  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  48  COA  founded  on  a  deed   12  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  16  Recovery  of  land   12  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  27(2)    Defamation   1  year  from  date  of  publication:  s  14B  Personal  injury  before  05/12/02   3  years  from  date  on  which  COA  accrues  to  the  P:  s  18A(2)  Personal  injury  after  05/12/02   3  years  from  date  on  which  COA  is  discoverable  by  P;  or  

12  years  running  from  time  of  act  or  omission  alleged  to  have  resulted  in  injury  or  death,  whichever  period  is  first  to  expire:  s  50C(1)(b)  

Work  injury   3  years  after  date  on  which  injury  was  received:  s  151D  Workers  Compensation  Act  1987  (NSW)  Motor  accident   3  years  after  date  of  motor  accident:  s  109  Motor  Accidents  Compensation  Act  1999  (NSW)  

Limitation  period  can  be  suspended  or  postponed  where  the  has  been  fraud  or  mistake:  ss  55  and  56  Limitation  Act  1969  (NSW)  

Limitation  period  for  minors  

Generally,  limitation  periods  for  minors  are  suspended  until  majority  attained:  s  52  Limitation  Act  1969  Minors  are  defined  as  “under  a  disability”  under  s  11(3)  Limitation  Act  1969  and  a  COA  accrues  when  the  disability  no  longer  exists  

However,  limitation  periods  for  personal  injury  matters  may  not  always  be  suspended  • If  a  personal  injury  COA  occurred  before  5/12/02,  limitation  period  is  suspended  until  minor  attains  majority  as  defined  in  s  11(3)  • If  a  personal  injury  COA  occurred  after  5/12/02,  minors  with  a  capable  parent  or  guardian  are  statute  barred  from  having  limitation  periods  suspended:  s  50F(2)(a)  

o Unless  minor  has  been  injured  by  close  relatives  –  in  which  case,  limitation  periods  are  suspended  until  minor  reaches  25  years  or  age:  s  50E  § The  12  year  long-­‐stop  limitation  period  accrues  from  the  time  minor  turns  25  years  of  age  

Page 37: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

37  

How  to  determine  when  COA  accrues  Generally,  a  COA  accrues  when:  

1) All  the  necessary  facts  occur,  that  is,  all  the  elements  to  a  COA  exist  o This  is  event  if  a  party  is  not  aware  of  all  the  elements:  see:  Wardley  v  WA  (1992)  

2) There  is  a  competent  P  who  can  sue  and  a  competent  D  who  can  be  sued:  see:  Thomson  v  Lord  Clanmorris  (1900)    

If  action  is:   COA  accrues  from:  Based  on  fraud   Date  of  discoverability:  s  55  Limitation  Act  1969  From  consequences  of  mistake   Date  P  first  discovers  mistake:  s  56  Limitation  Act  1969  Where  P  is  under  a  disability     Date  where  disability  no  longer  exists,  i.e.  limitation  period  is  suspended  for  period  during  which  disability  exists:  

s  52  Limitation  Act  1969  Based  on  breach  of  contract   Date  contract  is  breached  Based  in  tort   Date  wrongful  act  is  committed  or  loss  or  damage  is  suffered  

What  is  the  appropriate  jurisdiction?  

Determining  jurisdiction  

Service  defines  jurisdiction  Generally,  no  step  can  be  taken  against  D  until  they  have  been  served  with  originating  process  

• Once  D  has  been  served,  Court  has  jurisdiction  

Jurisdiction  has  impact  on  how  a  case  is  treated  For  example,  DC  has  no  jurisdiction  on  matters  under  the  Corporations  Act  

Consider  what  the  client  wants  • How  do  we  know  if  the  jurisdiction  is  the  correct  jurisdiction?    • Do  we  try  another  one  before  we  get  to  the  one  that  we  want?    • Do  we  need  definition  of  an  action  from  another  jurisdiction  before  we  go  to  another  one  to  get  word  on  the  action?    • Do  we  go  to  a  jurisdiction  based  on  affordability?    • What  are  the  outcomes  of  the  jurisdiction?    • Is  there  a  potential  bias  towards  your  client  in  a  particular  jurisdiction?    

 Must  know  of  ALL  jurisdictions  and  be  aware  of  and  need  to  scope  to  determine  where  you  will  commence  proceedings  

Page 38: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

38  

Types  of  jurisdiction  

Original  

Federal  –  all  matters  arising  under  the  Constitution  or  involving  its  interpretation  

Supreme  Court  –  anything  which  may  be  necessary  to  do  justice    

Appellate  

High  Court  –  appeals  from  any  judgements,  degrees,  orders  and  sentences  of  any  federal  court,  any  court  exercising  federal  jurisdiction  or  Supreme  Court  of  any  state  

Federal  and  State  Courts  –  appellate  powers  governed  by  legislation  

State  Courts  –  jurisdictional  limit  

Local  Court  –  Civil  ($100k  for  general  div  and  $10k  for  small  claims)  under  Pt  3  and  Criminal  under  Pt  4:  Local  Courts  Act  2007  (NSW)  

District  Court  –  Civil  ($750k)  under  Pt  3  and  Criminal  under  Pt  4:  District  Court  Act  1973  (NSW)  

Supreme  Court  –  Civil  and  Criminal  (unlimited):  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  (NSW)  

Inherent  

Supreme  court  –  all  powers  necessary  to  enable  it  to  act  effectively,  to  control  its  own  proceedings  and  prevent  abuse  of  process  

Cross-­‐vesting:  Jurisdiction  of  Courts  (Cross-­‐vesting)  Act  1987  (Cth  and  all  states)  These  Acts  purported  to  confer  jurisdiction  on  Federal  and  Family  Courts  to  heard  and  determine  matters  arising  under  State  or  Territorial  law  and  providing  for  the  transfer  of  proceedings  between  those  courts  

Under  the  Cross-­‐vesting  Acts,  provisions  which  confer  Federal  jurisdiction  on  State  courts  are  valid,  but  it  is  unconstitutional  to  confer  State  jurisdiction  on  Federal  Courts:  Re  Wakim;  Ex  parte  McNally  (1999)  As  part  of  the  national  corporations  law  scheme  instigated  after  the  HCA’s  ruling  in  NSW  v  Cth  (1990),  the  states  were  required  to  legislate  for  the  formation  of  corporations.  As  a  result  of  this,  the  states  had  to  vest  the  Federal  Court  with  state  jurisdiction  to  allow  Cth  to  have  effective  judicial  control  over  corporations  law  –  the  court  found  that  power  may  be  conferred  onto  the  federal  court  only  by  consistutional  right  (ss  75  and  76  Constutition)  and  that  no  other  polity  may  confer  jurisdiction  onto  the  courts  –  this  means  that  the  states  cannot  confer  onto  Federal  courts  

Page 39: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

39  

As  such,  the  cross-­‐vesting  scheme  only  provides  for:  

Conferral  of  federal  jurisdiction  on  State  courts:  s  4,  Cth  Act  

Cross-­‐vesting  of  State  jurisdiction  amongst  State  courts:  e.g.  s  4,  NSW  Act  

Transfer  of  proceedings  between  courts  participating  in  the  scheme:  s  5,  NSW  Act  • This  transfer  is  to  the  most  appropriate  court  • Transfer  is  only  possible  if  both  transferring  court  and  the  court  to  which  it  is  sought  to  transfer  the  proceedings  have  jurisdiction  

P’s  choice  of  tribunal  and  the  reasons  for  it  are  not  to  be  taken  into  account  in  determining  whether  the  proceedings  should  be  transferred  to  another  court:  BHP  Billiton  v  Schultz  (2004).  In  this  case,  relevant  factors  to  the  choice  of  forum  were:  

• The  place  or  places  where  the  parties  and/or  witnesses  reside  or  carry  on  business  • The  location  of  the  subject  matter  of  the  dispute  • The  importance  of  local  knowledge  to  the  resolution  of  the  issues  • The  law  governing  the  relevant  transaction  • The  procedures  available  in  the  different  courts  • The  likely  hearing  dates  in  the  different  courts  • Whether  it  is  sought  to  transfer  the  proceedings  to  a  specialised  court,  for  example,  the  Family  Court:  see  Lambert  v  Dean  (1989)  

Originating  proceedings  

Service  

Service  defines  jurisdiction:  Laurie  v  Carroll  (1958)  Generally,  no  step  can  be  taken  against  D  until  they  have  been  served  with  originating  process  

• Once  D  has  been  served,  Court  has  jurisdiction  

An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  r  31.2  UCPR  The  affidavit  must  clearly  identify  the  document  for  originating  proceedings  and  must  contain  a  statement  as  to  when,  where,  how  and  by  whom  service  was  effected  

• It  must  also  have  a  statement  concerning  the  service  or  subject  matter  of  proceedings  and  a  statement  that  deponent  is  over  16  years:  r  35.8  UCPR  • Affidavit  must  not  be  filed:  r  35.9  UCPR  

Page 40: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

40  

Service  generally  

Effect  service  by  either  leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1)),  or,  where  not  possible  by  threat  of  violence,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  Leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person or,  if  the  person  does  not  accept  the  copy,  by  putting  the  copy  down  in  the  person’s  presence  and  should  tell  the  person  the  nature  of  the  document  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1))  

There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  R  was  in  Australia  –  R  did  not  take  document  but  solicitor  did  and  said  “we  should  look  at  it”  –  Kirby  J  said  that  documents  had  come  into  the  vicinity  of  the  respondent  and,  therefore,  service  is  okay  –  Clark  J  said  that  the  issue  was  whether  R  had  declined.  If  declined,  server  had  to  describe  and  put  in  presence  of  R  –  facts  not  shown  if  R  declined.  As  such,  server  only  needed  to  issue  the  copy  of  document  with  R  even  if  R  did  not  take  copy  into  possession  physically  

If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  

Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jurisdiction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson    

Where  threat  of  violence  If,  by  violence  or  threat  of  violence,  a  person  attempting  service  is  prevented  from  approaching  another  person  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  a  document  to  the  other  person,  the  person  attempting  service  may  deliver  the  document  to  the  other  person  by  leaving  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  

Other  methods  of  service,  subject  to  rules  a) By  means  of  personal  service  (UCPR,  r  10.5(1)(a))  b) By  posting  a  copy  of  the  document,  addressed  to  the  person:  

i. To  the  person’s  address  for  service  (UCPR,  r  10.5(1)(b)(i))  ii. If  the  person  is  not  an  active  party,  to  the  person’s  business  or  residential  address  (UCPR,  r  10.5(1)(b)(ii))  

c) By  leaving  a  copy  of  the  document,  addressed  to  the  person:  i. At  the  person’s  address  for  service  (UCPR,  r  10.5(1)(c)(i))  ii. If  the  person  is  not  an  active  party,  at  the  person’s  business  or  residential  address  (UCPR,  r  10.5(1)(c)(ii))  

Service  on  a  corporation  

By  Corporations  Act  2001  (Cth),  service  is  by  leaving  it  or  posting  it  to  the  company’s  registered  office:  s  109X(1)(a)  CA  • Alternatively,  it  can  be  delivered  personally  to  the  director  of  the  company:  s  109X(1)(b)  CA  

Page 41: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

41  

By  UCPR,  originating  process  must  be  served  on  each  D:  r  6.2(3)  UCPR  

Any  originating  process  in  proceedings  in  the  SC  must  be  served  personally:  r  10.20(2)(a)  UCPR  

Effect  service  by  serving  on  a  head  officer  or  on  a  similar  officer  of  the  corporation  (UCPR,  r  10.22),  or,  if  they  don’t  accept,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  and  telling  the  person  the  nature  of  the  document  (UCPR,  r  10.21)  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  Leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person or,  if  the  person  does  not  accept  the  copy,  by  putting  the  copy  down  in  the  person’s  presence  and  should  tell  the  person  the  nature  of  the  document  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1))  

There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  R  was  in  Australia  –  R  did  not  take  document  but  solicitor  did  and  said  “we  should  look  at  it”  –  Kirby  J  said  that  documents  had  come  into  the  vicinity  of  the  respondent  and,  therefore,  service  is  okay  –  Clark  J  said  that  the  issue  was  whether  R  had  declined.  If  declined,  server  had  to  describe  and  put  in  presence  of  R  –  facts  not  shown  if  R  declined.  As  such,  server  only  needed  to  issue  the  copy  of  document  with  R  even  if  R  did  not  take  copy  into  possession  physically  

If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  

Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jursidction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson    

Service  on  an  interstate  company  

An  originating  process  for  service  in  Australia,  but  outside  NSW  must  bear  a  statement  that  either  P  intends  to  proceed  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth)  or  that  the  plaintiff  intends  to  proceed  under  the  UCPR  (UCPR,  r  10.3(3)).  

ss  109X(1)  and  (2)  CA  do  not  apply  to  a  process,  order  or  document  that  may  be  served  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act:  s  9(9)  SEPA  

By  UCPR,  any  originating  process  in  proceedings  in  the  SC  must  be  served  personally  on  a  principal  officer  of  the  company:  r  10.22  UCPR  

A  “principal  officer”  is  defined  under  r  10.21  UCPR  (a) The chairman of president of the governing body of the corporation, or;  (b) The general manager, chief executive officer or other person having general management of the affairs of the corporation, or;  

Page 42: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

42  

(c) The secretary, treasurer or other person having the general function of accepting correspondence on behalf of the corporation. Personal service is effected by leaving the document with a principal office of the company, or if they don’t accept it, by putting the copy down in the persons presence and telling the person the nature of the document  

By  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth),  there  are  several  ways  to  effect  service  

Service  of  a  process,  order  or  document  on  a  company  is  to  be  effected  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  company’s  registered  office  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(1))  

A  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  a  company  by  delivering  a  copy  of  it  personally  to  a  director  of  the  company  who  resides  within  Australia  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(2))    

If  a  liquidator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(3)),  official  manager  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4))  or  administrator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4A))  of  a  company  has  been  appointed,  a  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  the  company  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  office  of  the  liquidator,  official  manager  or  administrator  lodged  under  the  Corporations  Act  

An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  s  11  SEPA  The  requirements  of  this  type  of  affidavit  are  less  onerous  

Service  on  a  D  who  is  interstate  

An  originating  process  for  service  in  Australia,  but  outside  NSW  must  bear  a  statement  that  either  P  intends  to  proceed  under  the  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth)  or  that  the  plaintiff  intends  to  proceed  under  the  UCPR  (UCPR,  r  10.3(3)).  

Effect  service  by  either  leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1)),  or,  where  not  possible  by  threat  of  violence,  leave  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  

Leaving  a  copy  of  document  Leaving  a  copy  of  document  with  person or,  if  the  person  does  not  accept  the  copy,  by  putting  the  copy  down  in  the  person’s  presence  and  should  tell  the  person  the  nature  of  the  document  (UCPR,  r  10.21(1))  

Page 43: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

43  

There  is  no  need  to  describe  document  or  actually  hand  to  D  –  it  is  enough  that  D  knows  a  document  is  being  offered  and  they  do  not  reject:  Ainsworth  v  Redd  (1990)  R  was  in  Australia  –  R  did  not  take  document  but  solicitor  did  and  said  “we  should  look  at  it”  –  Kirby  J  said  that  documents  had  come  into  the  vicinity  of  the  respondent  and,  therefore,  service  is  okay  –  Clark  J  said  that  the  issue  was  whether  R  had  declined.  If  declined,  server  had  to  describe  and  put  in  presence  of  R  –  facts  not  shown  if  R  declined.  As  such,  server  only  needed  to  issue  the  copy  of  document  with  R  even  if  R  did  not  take  copy  into  possession  physically  

If  rejected  and  disputing  service,  D  has  onus  to  prove  evidence  that  document  was  rejected  and  sever  did  not  describe:  ANZ  v  Rostkier  

Further,  D  cannot  be  fraudulently  induced  into  the  jursidction  for  the  purpose  of  service:  Baldry  v  Jackson    

Where  threat  of  violence  If,  by  violence  or  threat  of  violence,  a  person  attempting  service  is  prevented  from  approaching  another  person  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  a  document  to  the  other  person,  the  person  attempting  service  may  deliver  the  document  to  the  other  person  by  leaving  it  as  near  as  practicable  to  that  other  person  (UCPR,  r  10.21(2))  

By  Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act  1992  (Cth),  there  are  several  ways  to  effect  service  

Service  of  a  process,  order  or  document  on  a  company  is  to  be  effected  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  company’s  registered  office  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(1))    

A  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  a  company  by  delivering  a  copy  of  it  personally  to  a  director  of  the  company  who  resides  within  Australia  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(2))  

If  a  liquidator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(3)),  official  manager  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4))  or  administrator  (Service  and  Execution  of  Process  Act,  s  9(4A))  of  a  company  has  been  appointed,  a  process,  order  or  document  may  be  served  on  the  company  by  leaving  it  at,  or  by  sending  it  by  post  to,  the  office  of  the  liquidator,  official  manager  or  administrator  lodged  under  the  Corporations  Act  

An  affidavit  of  service  satisfies  the  court  that  a  document  has  been  properly  served:  s  11  SEPA  The  requirements  of  this  type  of  affidavit  are  less  onerous  

Service  on  D  who  is  overseas  Originating  process  may  be  served  outside  Australia  in  the  circumstances  referred  to  in  Schedule  6  (UCPR,  r  11.2).  According  to  Schedule  6,  the  originating  process  may  be  served  outside  Australia  in  relation  to  the  following  circumstances:  

a) If  the  proceedings  are  founded  on  a  cause  of  action  arising  in  NSW  (UCPR,  Schedule  6(a))  b) If  the  proceedings  are  founded  on  a  breach  of  contract  in  NSW,  whether  or  not  the  breach  is  preceded  or  accompanied  by  a  breach  that  renders  impossible  the  

performance  of  any  part  of  the  contract  which  ought  to  be  performed  in  NSW  (UCPR,  Schedule  6(b))  

Page 44: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

44  

c) If  the  proceedings  are  founded  on  a  tort  committed  in  NSW  (UCPR,  Schedule  6(d))  d) If  the  person  to  be  served  is  domiciled  or  ordinarily  resident  in  NSW  (UCPR,  Schedule  6(g))  e) If  the  subject  matter  of  the  proceedings,  so  far  as  concerns  the  person  to  be  served,  is  property  in  NSW  (UCPR,  Schedule  6(j))  

They  need  not  be  personally  served  as  long  as  it  is  served  on  the  person  in  accordance  with  the  law  of  the  country  in  which  service  is  effected:  r  11.6  UCPR  This  means  that  if  the  service  is  appropriate  within  the  rule  of  country,  P  will  be  able  to  proceed  with  claim  

Further,  if  D  does  not  enter  an  appearance,  P  may  not  proceed  against  D  without  leave  of  SC:  r  11.4(1)  

In  granting  leave,  court  must  regard  4  factors:  Bulldogs  v  Williams  (2008)  (1) Whether  D  was  properly  served  (2) Whether  claims  fall  within  Sch  6  of  UCPR  (3) Whether  P  has  an  arguable  case  capable  of  surviving  an  ordinary  application  for  summary  judgment  (4) Whether  local  forum  is  “clearly  inappropriate”  and  there  is  some  other  forum  which  is  more  appropriate  

Obtaining  order  for  substituted  service  

P  must  satisfy  court  that  documents  either  cannot  practicably  be  served  on  person  (r  10.14(1)(a)  UCPR)  or  cannot  practicably  be  served  on  the  person  in  the  manner  provided  by  law  (r  10.14(1)(b)  UCPR)  If  satisfied,  the  court  may  order  that,  instead  of  service  of  document,  steps  be  taken  to  bring  the  document  to  the  notice  of  the  person:  r  10.14(1)  UCPR  

If  satisfied,  P  must  show  evidence  of  searches  and  inquiries  to  find  the  person  and  that  proposed  method  of  substituted  service  is  likely  to  bring  notice  to  party’s  attention: Syndicate  Mortgage  Solutions  Pty  Ltd  v  Khaled  El-­‐Sayed  (2009)  

Examples  of  attempts  • The  plaintiff  has  tried  to  serve  the  documents  personally,  through  the  post,  or  through  some  other  accepted  method  of  service  • The  plaintiff  has  made  several  inquiries  to  try  and  locate  the  defendant  without  success  • Service  appears  to  be  “impracticable”  (Syndicate  Mortgage  Solutions  Pty  Ltd  v  Khaled  El-­‐Sayed)  • Proposed  methods  of  service,  such  as  email,  fax,  skype,  facebook,  etc,  is  reasonably  likely  to  bring  notice  to  the  defendant’s  attention  (Syndicate  Mortgage  

Solutions  Pty  Ltd  v  Khaled  El-­‐Sayed)  

Objection  to  service  

Seeking  order  to  set  aside  originating  process:  r  12.11(a)  UCPR  Where  D  has  sought  to  have  the  SOC  set  aside  and  has  been  rejected,  D  has  7  days  to  enter  an  appearance  either  by  filing  a  notice  of  appearance  or  filing  a  defence:  r  6.10(1)(a)(ii)  CPA  

Page 45: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

45  

An  order  setting  aside  the  service  of  the  originating  process  on  the  defendant  (UCPR,  r  12.11(1)(b))  

An  order  declaring  that  the  originating  process  has  not  been  duly  served  on  the  defendant  (UCPR,  r  12.11(1)(c))  

Statement  of  Claim  or  Summons?  

Summons  are  used  where  questions  of  law  are  in  dispute:  r  6.4  UCPR  (1) Proceedings  of  the  following  kinds  must  be  commenced  by  summons:  

a. proceedings  in  which  there  is  no  defendant,  b. proceedings  on  an  appeal  or  application  for  leave  to  appeal,  other  than  proceedings  assigned  to  the  Court  of  Appeal,  b1.  proceedings  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  under  section  69  of  the  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  ,  c. proceedings  for  preliminary  discovery  or  inspection  under  Part  5,  d. proceedings  on  a  stated  case,  e. proceedings  on  an  application  for  approval  under  section  75  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Act  2005  of  an  agreement  for  the  compromise  or  settlement  of  a  claim,  f. proceedings  on  an  application  for  a  transfer  order  under  Part  9  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Act  2005  ,  g. proceedings  on  an  application  for  the  removal  or  transfer  of  proceedings  to  the  court  under  any  Act,  other  than  an  application  for  a  transfer  order  under  

Part  9  of  the  Civil  Procedure  Act  2005  ,  h. proceedings  (other  than  proceedings  on  a  claim  for  damages)  on  any  application  made  under  any  Act  (other  than  the  Civil  Procedure  Act  2005  ),  i. proceedings  on  an  application  to  the  court  under  any  Act,  other  than:  

i. proceedings  on  an  application  under  the  Supreme  Court  Act  1970  ,  the  District  Court  Act  1973  or  the  Local  Court  Act  2007  ,  and  ii. proceedings  on  an  application  that  may  properly  be  made  in  existing  proceedings,  

j. any  other  proceedings  that,  pursuant  to  these  rules  or  any  other  rules  of  court,  are  required  to  be  commenced  by  summons.  (2) Proceedings  of  the  following  kinds  may  be  commenced  by  summons,  except  where  the  application  is  made  in  proceedings  that  have  been  commenced  in  the  court:  

a. proceedings  on  an  application  for  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus  ad  subjiciendum,  b. proceedings  on  an  application  for  an  order  for  the  custody  of  a  minor,  c. proceedings  on  an  application  for  an  order  for  the  appointment  of  a  tutor  of  a  person  under  legal  incapacity  d. proceedings  on  an  application  for  a  declaration  of  right,  e. proceedings  on  an  application  for  an  injunction,  f. proceedings  on  an  application  for  the  appointment  of  a  receiver,  g. proceedings  on  an  application  for  an  order  for  the  detention,  custody  or  preservation  of  property,  h. proceedings  on  a  claim  for  relief  for  trespass  to  land  

If  proceedings  have  already  been  commenced,  the  application  should  be  made  by  motion:  see  rule  18.1.  (3) Proceedings  in  the  Supreme  Court  that  the  plaintiff  intends  to  be  entered  in  the  Commercial  List  or  the  Technology  and  Construction  List  are  to  be  commenced  by  

summons.  (4) Proceedings:  

a.  in  which  the  sole  or  principal  question  at  issue  is,  or  is  likely  to  be,  one  of:  i. the  construction  of  an  Act  or  a  Commonwealth  Act,  or  

Page 46: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

46  

ii. the  construction  of  an  instrument  made  under  an  Act  or  a  Commonwealth  Act,  or  iii. the  construction  of  a  deed,  will,  contract  or  other  document,  or  iv. some  other  question  of  law,  or  

b. in  which  there  is  unlikely  to  be  a  substantial  dispute  of  fact,  are  amongst  those  which  are  appropriate  to  be  commenced  by  summons  unless  the  plaintiff  considers  the  proceedings  more  appropriate  to  be  commenced  by  statement  of  claim.  

Forms  

Represented:  • SOC:  Form  3A  • Summons:  For  4A  

Unrepresented:  • SOC:  Form  3B  • Summons:  Form  4B  

Statement  of  Claims  are  used  where  issues  of  fact  are  in  dispute:  r  6.3  UCPR  a) Proceedings  on  a  claim  for  relief  in  relation  to  a  debt  or  other  liquidated  claim  (UCPR,  r  6.3(a))  b) Proceedings  on  a  claim  for  relief  in  relation  to  a  tort  (UCPR,  r  6.3(b))  c) Proceedings  on  a  claim  based  on  an  allegation  of  fraud  (UCPR,  r  6.3(c))  d) Proceedings  on  a  claim  for  damages  for  breach  of  duty  and  the  damages  consist  of  or  include:  

i. Damages  in  respect  of  the  death  of  any  person  (UCPR,  r  6.3(d)(i))  ii. Damages  in  respect  of  personal  injuries  to  any  person  (UCPR,  r  6.3(d)(ii))  iii. Damages  in  respect  of  damage  to  any  property  (UCPR,  r  6.3(d)(iii))  

e) Proceedings  on  a  claim  for  relief  in  relation  to  a  trust  (UCPR,  r  6.3(e))  f) Proceedings  on  a  claim  for  possession  of  land  (UCPR,  r  6.3(f))  

Information  needed  on  originating  process  a) The  name  of  the  court  in  which  proceedings  are  to  be  commenced  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(a))  b) If  relevant,  the  division  in  which  the  proceeding  are  intended  to  be  heard  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(b))  c) The  venue  at  which  the  proceedings  are  intended  to  be  heard  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(c))  d) The  title  of  the  proceedings  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(d))  e) The  nature  of  the  process  (summons  or  statement  of  claim)  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(e))  f) If  the  process  is  filed  by  a  person  who  is  neither  the  party  nor  the  party’s  solicitor  or  solicitor’s  agent,  the  capacity  in  which  the  person  acts  when  filing  the  

document  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(f))  g) The  party’s  address  and  the  party’s  address  for  service  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(g))  

Page 47: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

47  

h) The  address,  if  known,  of  any  defendant  (UCPR,  r  4.2(1)(h))  

Pleadings:  Pt  14  UCPR  

Form:  

Pleadings  to  be  divided  into  paragraphs  14.6  • Each  matter  must,  so  far  as  convenient,  be  put  in  a  separate  paragraph  (UCPR,  r  14.6(b))  • The  paragraphs  must  be  numbered  consecutively  (UCPR,  r  14.6(c))  

Pleadings  to  contain  facts,  not  evidence  14.7  

A  party  need  not  plead  a  fact  if  fact  is  presumed  by  law  to  be  true  (UCPR,  r  14.10(a))  and  burden  of  disproving  the  fact  lies  on  the  opposite  party  (UCPR,  r  14.10(b))  Except  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  meet  a  specific  denial  of  that  fact  by  another  party’s  pleading.  

Facts,  not  allegations,  must  be  pleaded:  Gunns  v  Marr    

Pleadings  to  be  brief  -­‐  14.8    

Contents  

Where  there  are  references  in  pleadings  to  documents  and  conversations,  they  should  describe  the  effect  of  the  document  or  conversation:  r  14.9  It  should  not  be  in  the  precise  terms  stated  

Pleadings  must  not  claim  for  an  unliquidated  amount:  r  14.13(1)  

Exception  to  this  is  the  claim  is  in  the  Local  Court  in  regards  to  repair  towing  or  cost  of  hiring  a  motor  vehicle  is  a  consequence  of  damaged  alleged  as  a  result  of  negligence  by  D  or  D’s  agent  or  servant:  r  14.13(2)  

Matter  must  be  specifically  pleaded  by  plaintiff  or  defendant  if  it  would  take  the  other  party  by  surprise:  r  14.14  

Material  facts  are  not  statement  of  material  facts  alone  –  “material”  means  material  to  the  claim  ,  that  is,  to  the  cause/s  of  action  which  are  relied  upon:  Kirby  v  Sanderson  (2002)    

Page 48: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

48  

A  pleading  must  disclose  a  reasonable  COA  and  the  facts  that  support  it  in  order  to  assist  D  to  the  case  they  have  to  meet  –the  pleading  is  not  sufficient  if  no  COA  can  be  deduced  from  it  when  the  statement  stands  alone:  Charlie  Carter  v  Allied  Employees’  Association  (WA)  (1987)  

Particulars  must  also  be  provided:  r  15.1  UCPR  

The  particulars  to  be  given  must  be  set  out  in  the  pleading  or,  if  that  is  inconvenient,  must  be  set  out  in  a  separate  document  referred  to  in  the  pleading  and  filed  with  the  pleading  (UCPR,  r  15.9).  The  particulars  to  be  given  by  a  pleading  that  alleges  negligence  (whether  contributory  or  otherwise):  

a) Must  state  the  facts  and  circumstances  on  which  the  party  pleading  relies  as  constituting  the  alleged  negligent  act  or  omission  (UCPR,  r  15.5(1)(a))  b) If  the  party  pleading  alleges  more  than  one  negligent  act  or  omission,  must,  so  far  as  practicable,  state  separately  the  facts  and  circumstances  on  which  the  party  

relies  in  respect  of  each  alleged  negligent  act  or  omission  (UCPR,  r  15.5(1)(b))  

Pleadings  must  also  be  intelligible  and  state  the  facts  on  which  P  relies  for  the  existence  for  their  COA.  Incoherent  statements  of  claim  should  not  be  allowed:  Markisic  v  Dept  of  Community  Services  of  NSW  (2006)  M  took  child  to  Australia  from  Macedonia  –  Dept  ruled  to  take  child  back  to  Mac  –  M  appealed  ruling  –  child  flow  to  Mac  –  claim  was  that  various  parties  were  vicariously  liable  and  claimed  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  including  judges  –  SOC  was  amended  and  it  was  just  as  bad  –  it  was  considered  vexatious  and  scandalous  –  court  considered  that  it  would’ve  been  struck  out  even  if  it  got  through    

If  pleadings  are  not  clear,  provide  procedural  fairness,  etc,  and  are,  instead,  intelligible,  ambiguous,  vague  or  just  too  general  so  as  to  embarrass  the  opposite  party  who  does  not  know  what  is  alleged  against  him,  the  court  may  order  pleading  be  struck  out:  Priest  v  NSW  

This  must  be  supported  by  particulars,  either  set  out  in  the  pleading  or,  if  that  is  inconvenient,  set  out  in  a  separate  document  referred  to  in  the  pleading  and  filed  with  the  pleading:  r  15.9  UCPR  

A  party’s  pleadings  must  be  verified  by  affidavit  (UCPR,  r  14.23(2)).  However,  there  are  exceptions  to  what  needs  to  be  verified  by  affidavit  

Exceptions  to  verification  by  affidavit  where  there  is  a  recovery  of  pages  for  the  following  a) Defamation  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(a))  b) Malicious  prosecution  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(b))  c) False  imprisonment  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(c))  d) Trespass  to  the  person  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(d))  e) Death  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(e))  f) Personal  injury  (UCPR,  r  14.22(1)(f))  

Page 49: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

49  

Amendment  of  pleadings  Non-­‐appearance  of  a  defendant  at  trial  does  not  give  the  plaintiff  free  rein  to  amend  pleadings  and  raise  issues  which  the  absent  defendant  has  no  knowledge  of:  Banque  Commerciale  S.A  v  Akhil  Holdings  Limited  (1990)  

Defendant  must  plead  contributory  negligence:  r  14.16  

Pleadings  must  be  consistent  but  matters  can  be  pleaded  in  the  alternative:  r  14.18  

Pleadings  may  raise  points  of  law:  r  14.19  That  said,  French  CJ  in  Charlie  Carter  (1987)  also  noted  that,  although  r  14.19  allows  a  pleading  to  raise  a  point  of  law,  pleadings  should  not  contain  mere  allegations  or  conclusions  of  law  

Cannot  plead  the  general  issue:  r  14.20  

Where  incorrectly  commenced  by:  

Summons:  r  6.6  UCPR  

Statement  of  claim:  r  6.5  UCPR  

…  proceedings  will  be  taken  to  have  been  duly  commenced  as  from  date  of  filing  and  will  be  continued  accordingly:  Greenwood  v  Papademetri  (2007)  

Consider  liquidated  vs  unliquidated  claims  

Where  unliquidated  claims  in  District  Court,  PN  DC  (Civil)  1  requires  additional  requirements:  

P’s  preparation  for  trial  must  be  well  advanced  before  filing  SOC:  para  2.1  

On  serving  SOC,  P  must  also  serve  on  D:  

Proposed  consent  orders  for  preparation  of  case:  para  3.1  

Notification  of  the  date  and  time  of  the  pre-­‐trial  conference  which  will  be  provided  on  filing  of  the  SOC:  para  5.1  

Any  particulars  of  the  claim  that  are  required  should  have  been  requested  and  supplied  by  time  of  pre-­‐trial  conference:  para  3.3    

Page 50: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

50  

Defence  

If  D  does  not  respond  or  specifically  deny  each  factual  allegation  in  the  SOC,  those  facts  are  deemed  to  be  admitted:  r  14.26  UCPR  If  D  wants  to  file  a  counter  claim,  P  must  also  file  a  defence  in  the  same  manner  or  all  factual  allegations  are  deemed  to  be  admitted  

A  party  may  not  withdraw  an  admission  or  any  matter  that  operates  for  the  benefit  of  another  party  without  consent  of  the  other  party  or  by  leave  of  the  court:  r  12.6(2)  UCPR  

However,  any  defence  may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  (r  12.6(1)  UCPR)  by  filing  a  notice  of  withdrawal  stating  the  extent  of  the  withdrawal  (r  12.6(3)  UCPR)  

Where  withdrawal  is  by  consent,  notice  of  withdrawal  must  be  accompanied  by  a  notice  of  consent  by  all  relevant  parties:  r  12.6(4)  UCPR    

It  is  in  the  defence  that  D  counter  claims  and  requests  further  particulars  

Particulars  operate  to  assist  in  defining  the  case  in  which  D  has  to  answer:  Sims  v  Wran  (1984)  per  Hunt  J  

However,  there  is  a  fine  line  between  giving  particulars  of  the  case,  and  disclosing  evidence  by  which  that  case  is  to  be  proved:  Allianz  v  Newcastle  Formwork  (2007)  The  court  does  not  look  kindly  upon  an  excessive  request  for  particulars  and  an  unbending  response  that  the  full  list  of  particulars  be  provided  

Providing  of  particulars  is  only  a  bit  more  onerous  in  regards  to  personal  injury  claims  where  a  full  list  of  particulars  are  required:  r  15.12  UCPR  

P  must  also  provide  particulars  for  allegations  of  fraud  (r  15.3),  condition  of  mind  (r  15.4),  negligence  and  tort  (r  15.5),  claims  for  out  of  pocket  expenses  (r  15.6),  exemplary  damages  (r  15.7)  and  aggravated  damages  (r  15.8),  but  it  is  not  to  the  specificity  of  r  15.12  

The  court  can  make  an  order  for  particulars  to  be  filed:  r  15.10(1)(a)  UCPR    

Page 51: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

51  

Reply:  r  14.4  UCPR  

It  is  presumed  that,  where  there  is  no  reply  to  defence  by  P,  there  is  a  denial  of  every  allegation  of  fact  made  in  the  pleading:  r  14.27(2)  and  (5)  UCPR  This  results  in  a  joinder  of  all  the  issues  in  a  pleading:  r  14.27  UCPR  

In  proceedings  in  the  Supreme  Court  or  the  District  Court,  a  plaintiff  may  file  a  reply  to  a  defence:  subs  1  

In  proceedings  in  the  Local  Court,  a  plaintiff  may  file  a  reply  to  a  defence  only  by  leave  of  the  Court:  subs  2  

The  time  limited  for  the  plaintiff  to  file  a  reply  is  14  days  after  service  of  the  defence  on  the  plaintiff:  subs  3  

Counter  claims  and  set  offs  

Set  offs  are  where  one  party  can  apply  a  debt  (liquidated  claim)  owed  to  him  by  an  other  party  to  discharge  all  or  party  of  a  debt  he  owes  that  party  

D  has  a  right  to  set  off  if  there  are  mutual  debts  between  P  and  D  as  way  of  defence:  CPA  s  21  

s  21  CPA  does  not  apply  to  unliquidated  claims  and  is  restricted  to  mutual  debts:  Integral  Home  Loans  v  Interstar  (No  2)(2007)  

Counter  claims  is  a  procedural  device  where  actions  by  one  party  against  the  other  and  vice  versa  are  heard  part  of  one  proceeding:  s  22  CPA    

This  is  a  procedural  device  only  and  not  a  substantive  right  –  any  substantive  right  to  claim  contribution  exists  independently:  Dillingham  v  Steel  Mains  (1975)  This  mean  that  any  party  making  a  counter  claim  needs  to  ensure  that  there  is  a  separate  right  to  claim  contribution  from  a  different  area  of  law,  whether  statutory  or  case  law  

Counter  claims  against  P  do  not  have  to  related  or  connected  to  P’s  claim  or  arise  out  of  the  same  transaction  –  it  is  merely  required  to  be  within  the  same  parties  to  the  original  claim  and  be  a  matter  where  court  has  jurisdiction:  s  22(1)  CPA  

However,  D  can  bring  a  counter  claim  against  a  person  who  is  not  a  party  to  the  proceedings  if  it  is  related  or  connected  with  the  subject  of  the  existing  proceedings:  s  22(2)  CPA  In  this  situation,  the  non-­‐party  becomes  a  cross-­‐defendant  and  is  bound  by  the  judgement  between  P  and  D  

Page 52: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

52  

• Further,  without  an  order  of  the  court,  cross-­‐D  does  not  become  a  D  against  P  and  is  not  allowed  to  intrude  upon  conduct  of  proceedings  between  P  and  D  

This  party  must  be  served  with  both  the  originating  process  and  the  cross  claim:  r  9.7  UCPR  

Counter  claims  must  be  made  in  the  same  time  limit  for  a  party  to  file  a  defence:  r  9.1  UCPR  

For  proceedings  commencing  as  a  SOC,  this  period  is  28  days  after  service  or  such  time  the  court  directs:  r  6.10(1)(a)  UCPR  

Defences  to  a  counter  claim  must  be  made  in  the  same  manner  as  a  SOC:  r  9.4  UCPR  

If  a  cross  D  does  not  file  a  defence,  the  decision  as  between  parties  to  the  counter  claim,  are  binding:  r  9.5  UCPR  

Discontinuance,  withdrawal,  summary  dismissal  and  setting  aside  of  originating  process:  Pt  12  UCPR  

P  may  do  so  in  regards  to  all  claims  for  relief  or  all  claims  for  relieve  in  respect  to  a  particular  D  by  filing  a  notice  of  discontinuance:  r  12.1(1)  UCPR  

However,  this  requires  consent  of  each  active  party  (subs  a),  and  with  leave  of  the  court  (subs  b)  

Notice  of  discontinuance  must  have  a  certificate  by  solicitor  saying  that  P  is  only  discontinuing  for  themselves  and  for  no  one  else:  subs  2(a)  

However,  if  the  notice  is  to  represent  more  than  P,  there  must  be  a  notice  from  each  party  whose  consent  is  required  under  subs  1  to  the  effect  that  the  relevant  party  consents  to  the  proceedings  being  discontinued,  with  leave  of  the  court:  subs  2(b)  

In  this  instance,  a  notice  of  consent  is  required:  subs  3  

This  rule  does  not  apply  to  proceedings  on  a  counter  claim:  subs  5  

Effect  of  discontinuance  -­‐  does  not  prevent  plaintiff  starting  again:  r  12.3  UCPR  

However,  this  is  subject  to  consent  and  leave  requirements  as  outlined  in  r  12.1  UCPR  If  this  occurs  while  P  is  liable  to  pay  costs  of  another  party  in  relation  to  original  proceedings,  court  may  place  a  stay  on  new  proceedings  until  costs  are  paid:  r  12.4  UCPR    

Page 53: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

53  

Dismissal  of  proceedings  for  lack  of  progress:  Pt  12  Div  3  

Dismissal  due  to  want  of  due  despatch:  If  P  does  not  prosecute  (subs  1)  or  D  conduct  defence  (subs  2)  with  due  despatch,  court  may  order  proceedings  be  dismissed,  defences  may  be  struck  out  in  part  or  in  full,  or  any  other  order  the  court  sees  fit:  r  12.7  UCPR  

ss  56-­‐60  CPA  are  relevant  considerations  in  the  court’s  decision  to  do  so  

In  the  Supreme  Court,  if  no  action  has  been  made  in  5  months,  court  may  dismiss  proceedings  of  its  own  motion:  r  12.8  UCPR  

Notice  must  be  given  to  P  and  any  other  active  party  before  this  is  to  be  done:  r  12.8(4)  UCPR  Notice  can  be  sent  by  post  to  person’s  address  or,  if  not  know,  last  known  address  with  envelope  marked  with  return  address:  r  12.8(5)  UCPR  

In  the  District  or  Local  Court,  if  no  defence  or  cross-­‐claim  has  been  filed,  an  application  for  default  judgement  has  not  been  filed  and  proceedings  not  otherwise  disposed  of  in  9  months,  court  may  dismiss  proceedings  of  its  own  motion:  r  12.9(2)  UCPR  

No  notice  is  needed:  r  12.9(3)  UCPR  

Defective  pleadings  

Summary  judgment  

P  can  apply  for  summary  judgement  against  D  who  has  filed  a  defence  that  does  not  reveal  a  valid  defence  to  P’s  claim,  or  whose  only  defence  is  in  regard  to  the  amount  of  damages  claimed:  r  13.1  UCPR  

D  can  apply  for  summary  judgement  against  P  who  has  filed  a  statement  of  claim  or  summons  that  is  frivolous,  vexatious,  where  no  reasonable  COA,  or  the  proceedings  are  an  abuse  of  process:  r  13.4  UCPR  

Frivolous  proceedings    This  is  one  that  is  not  worth  serious  attention  

Page 54: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

54  

Vexatious  proceedings  This  is  one  that  is  undertaking  for  the  purpose  of  harassment,  one  that  cannot  succeed  or  that  is  initiated  to  waste  time  or  cause  delay  

Abuse  of  process  See  in  “general  principles”,  but  generally,  proceedings  brought  for  an  ulterior  purpose  

Summary  judgements  are  to  be  “sparingly  employed”:  General  Steel  v  Commissioner  for  Railways  (1964)  

A  case  must  be  very  clear  to  justify  the  summary  intervention  of  the  court  to  prevent  a  party  from  submitting  his  case  for  determination  by  the  court:  Dey  v  Victorian  Railways  Commissioners  (1948)  per  Dixon  J  This  is  because  P  should  not  be  prevented  from  litigating  without  good  reason  and  D  should  be  allowed  to  defend  if  an  arguable  case  exists:  s  91  CPA  

Striking  out  pleadings  

Whole  or  part  of  a  pleading  may  be  struck  out  if  pleading  discloses  no  reasonable  COA  or  defence  (r  14.28(1)(a)  UCPR),  may  cause  prejudice,  embarrassment  or  delay  in  proceedings  (r  14.28(1)(b)  UCPR),  or  is  an  abuse  of  process  (r  14.28(1)(c)  UCPR):  Markisic  v  Dpt  of  Community  Service  of  NSW  (No  2)  It  is  necessary  that  the  pleading  be  intelligible  and  enable  the  D  to  know  the  case  which  the  D  is  called  upon  to  meet,  to  plead  to  it  and  to  respond  to  it  by  evidence  at  a  trial.  That  is  essential  if  justice  is  to  be  afforded  by  the  defendant,  and  underlies  in  part  summary  dismissal  of  proceedings  and  striking  out  pleadings  for  vexatiousness,  failure  to  disclose  a  reasonable  cause  of  action  or  tendency  to  cause  prejudice,  embarrassment  or  delay  

Concluding  proceedings  before  trial  

Default  judgment  

P  can  apply  for  a  default  judgement  if  D  does  not  file  an  appearance  or  a  defence  within  the  required  time:  r  16.3  UCPR  

Default  judgements  provide  an  incentive  for  D  to  file  an  appearance,  a  defence  (r  16.2(1)(a)  UCPR),  any  affidavit  verifying  his  defence  (r  16.2(1)(b)  UCPR),  or  D  files  a  defence  that  the  court  strikes  out  (r  16.2(1)(c)  UCPR)  within  the  prescribe  period  of  time  of  28  days  (r  14.3  UCPR)  

Any  application  for  default  judgement  just  be  accompanied  by:    

Page 55: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

55  

Affidavits  in  support  of  requirements:  r  16.6  UCPR  (in  regards  to  liquidated  claims)  or  r  16.7  UCPR  (in  regards  to  unliquidated  claims)  

Affidavit  of  service  of  the  originating  process:  r  16.3  

Liquidated  vs  Unliquidated  claims  

In  the  case  of  a  liquidated  claim  (r  16.6  UCPR),  P  must  file:    

The  required  notice  of  motion,      

An  affidavit  of  service  of  the  statement  of  claim,    

An  affidavit  in  support  which  will  contain  proof  of  the  debt  -­‐  note  that  the  affidavit  should  include  a  statement  the  source  of  the  knowledge,  information  or  belief  on  which  the  affidavit  is  based  [section  172  Evidence  Act  1995  (NSW)].    

N.B.  Once  the  Registry  has  processed  these  documents,  judgment  is  entered  and  the  plaintiff  can  take  steps  to  enforce  the  judgment.  

In  the  case  of  an  unliquidated  claim    (r  16.7  UCPR),  judgement  is  entered  in  favour  of  D  and  matter  proceeds  with  an  assessment  of  damages  to  which  P  is  entitled:  r  16.7  UCPR  

Neither  service  of  the  application  for  default  judgement,  or  the  presence  of  D  is  needed:  r  16.4(1A)  UCPR  

D  can  apply  to  the  court  to  exercise  it’s  discretion  to  rule  that  a  default  judgement  be  set  aside:  r  36.16(2)(a)  UCPR  

D  must  explain  the  delay  in  filing  a  defence  and  satisfy  the  court  that  there  is  a  meritable  defence:  Borowiak  v  Hobbs  (2006).  D  must  also  prove  that  there  is  no  prejudice  to  the  other  side  to  be  let  back  in  Car  accident  between  P  and  D  –  negligence  of  P  –  P  made  claim  to  insurer  –  met  –  D  sought  to  get  damage  costs  to  car  to  NRMA  –  NRMA  failed  to  respond  to  letter  of  demand  by  D  –  D  obtained  a  default  judgement  –  application  by  P  to  set  aside  default  judgement  –  first  instance  dismissed  –  second  instance  dismissed  –  both  had  no  reason  why  there  was  a  delay  –  court  found  that  the  actions  of  NRMA  show  “distain  or  indifference”  to  time  limits  imposed  by  the  rules  for  the  filing  of  a  defence  –  the  judge  has  no  concrete  rule  or  mandatory  formula  to  follow  in  use  of  a  r  36.16  unfettered  discretion  –  just  has  to  assess  whether  it  was  a  reasonable  delay  –  NRMA  did  not  show  this  so  default  judgement  was  not  set  aside    

Page 56: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

56  

Costs  

Costs  follow  the  event:  r  42.1  UCPR  

This  principle  is  subject  to  the  court  making  some  other  order  it  sees  fit  (r  42.1  UCPR)  –  this  includes  costs  orders  on  the  ordinary  or  indemnity  basis  (s  98  CPA)  

Indemnity  costs  should  be  paid  other  than  thse  that  appear  to  have  been  unreasonably  incurred  or  appear  to  be  of  an  unreasonable  amount:  r  42.5(b)  UCPR  

And  this  principle  is  subject  to  the  overriding  purpose  in  s  56  CPA  

s  60  CPA  provides  that  the  use  of  this  discretion  is  guided  by  proportionality  principles:  see:  Zanella  v  Madden  (2007)  per  Young  J  Issue  re:  property  and  entitlements  –  one  of  the  parties  had  not  appeared  –  possibly  in  Scotland,  possibly  dead  –  Court  can  declare  D  dead  –  usual  way  of  doing  this  such  as  putting  up  notices  in  Scotland  were  not  necessary  considering  the  expense  of  doing  so  and  the  estate  value  ($37k)  –  as  they  were  joint  tenants,  in  declaring  D  dead,  P  was  able  to  claim  full  value  of  assets  

See  also:  Vella  v  ANZ  (2011)  Applications  for  notice  to  produce  –  trial  of  multiple  parties  costing  at  least  $100k  per  day  –  court  will  not  interrupt  proceedings  to  wait  for  subpoenas  for  notices  to  produce  –  will  not  delay  to  unnecessarily  add  to  costs  –  since  Pt  6,  it  has  driven  the  profession  to  address  legal  issues  at  an  early  stage  

Also  bear  in  mind  that  costs  made  following  interlocutory  decisions  are  payable  on  the  conclusion  of  proceedings  unless  the  court  otherwise  orders:  r  42.7  UCPR  

Cost  assessments  are  rarely  made,  but  when  made,  are  done  so  under  s  353  LPA  The  task  of  the  assessor  is  set  out  in  s  364  LPA  

Exception  to  the  costs  follow  the  event  rule  are  Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  These  are  multiple  party  proceedings  

Page 57: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

57  

This  is  a  situation  where  there  is  one  P  and  two  D’s  (D1  and  D2)  –  P  wins  against  D2,  P  loses  against  D1  

Bullock  order  is  where  P  pays  D1,  but  P  can  recover  costs  from  D2  

Sanderson  order  is  where  D2  pays  P  directly  and  pays  D1  directly    

Bullock  and  Sanderson  orders  may  be  made  where  it  was  (i)  reasonable  for  P  to  proceed  against  D1,  and  (ii)  the  conduct  of  D2  drew  D1  into  litigation  Therefore,  D2  should  be  liable  for  the  costs  of  that  litigation  as  well  

Cost  orders  against  lawyers  

Lawyers  have  a  duty  to  assist  the  courts  to  achieve  the  overriding  purpose:  s  56(4)  CPA  

Any  failure  to  do  so  can  give  a  costs  order  under  s  99  CPA,  which  applies  to  serious  neglect,  misconduct  or  incompetence  of  lawyer:  see:  Treadwell  v  Hickey  

S  348  LPA  achieves  the  same  aim  

Security  for  costs    

Court  has  power  to  order  P  to  give  security  for  D’s  cost  of  defending  P’s  claim  and  can  order  stay  of  proceedings  until  this  is  done:  r  42.21  

This  order  is  discretionary  and  discretion  is  unfettered,  but  it  will  not  be  made  automatically:  Barton  v  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs  (1984)  This  is  borne  out  of  a  protective  jurisdiction  to  ensure  that  the  primary  purpose  for  having  costs  orders  themselves  can  be  achieved  

• D  is  protected  against  risk  that  costs  ordered  may  turn  out  to  be  of  no  value  –  it  is  both  a  compensation  purpose  and  a  public  interest  purpose  

Page 58: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

58  

The  court  may  do  so  if:  

P  is  normally  a  resident  outside  NSW:  subs  1  

The  court  took  “outside  NSW”  to  mean  ouside  Australia  or  a  person  who  lives  in  a  Territory  –  to  define  “outside  NSW”  to  mean  “another  state  in  Australia  not  in  NSW”  would  be  unconstitutional  under  s  117:  Aus  Building  construction  Employee  v  Commonwealth  Trading  Bank  (1976)  

Address  of  P  is  not  stated  or  misstated  in  originating  process  and  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  this  was  due  to  an  intention  to  deceive:  subs  2  

P  changes  address  after  proceedings  have  commenced  and  P  did  so  to  avoid  consequences  of  proceedings:  subs  3  

P  is  a  corporation  and  will  be  unable  to  pay  costs  if  ordered  to  do  so:  subs  d  

The  evidence  to  be  relied  on  must  have  some  characteristic  of  cogency.  Furthermore,  speculation  as  to  the  insolvency  or  financial  difficulties  experienced  by  the  plaintiff  company  is  insufficient  to  ground  the  exercise  of  the  discretion:  Warren  Mitchell  P/L  v  Australian  Maritime  Officers  Union  (1993)  But  generally,  a  “natural  person”  who  sues  will  not  be  ordered  to  give  security  costs,  however  poor:  Pearson  v  Naydler  (1977)  

P  is  suing  for  the  benefit  of  the  other  and  P  will  be  unable  to  pay  costs  of  D:  subs  e  

However,  establishing  one  of  these  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  an  order  is  justified  

Generally,  a  “natural  person”  who  sues  will  not  be  ordered  to  give  security  costs,  however  poor:  Pearson  v  Naydler  (1977)  

Even  with  corporations,  the  evidence  to  be  relied  on  must  have  some  characteristic  of  cogency.  Furthermore,  speculation  as  to  the  insolvency  or  financial  difficulties  experienced  by  the  plaintiff  company  is  insufficient  to  ground  the  exercise  of  the  discretion:  Warren  Mitchell  P/L  v  Australian  Maritime  Officers  Union  (1993)  

Facts  to  be  considered  in  the  balancing  process  of  factors  in  use  of  discretion:  Idoport  v  NAB  (2001)  The  exercise  of  the  power  is  balancing  process  of  factors  relevant  to  ensuring  adequate  and  fair  protection  of  a  costs  award  to  D  and  avoiding  injustice  to  an  impecunious  P  by  preventing  his  /her  case  from  going  to  trial.  

Page 59: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

59  

That  regard  is  to  be  had  to  the  strength  and  bona  fides  of  the  applicant’s  case  

Whether  the  applicant’s  impecuniosity  was  caused  by  the  respondent’s  conduct  subject  of  the  claim  

Whether  the  respondent’s  application  for  security  is  oppressive,  in  the  sense  that  it  is  being  used  merely  to  deny  an  impecunious  applicant  a  right  to  litigate    

Whether  there  are  any  persons  standing  behind  the  company  who  are  likely  to  benefit  from  the  litigation  and  who  are  willing  to  provide  the  necessary  security,  and  if  yes  

Whether  persons  standing  behind  the  company  have  offered  any  personal  undertaking  to  be  liable  for  the  costs  and  if  so,  the  form  of  any  such  undertaking  

Security  will  only  ordinarily  be  ordered  against  a  party  who  is  in  substance  a  plaintiff,  and  an  order  ought  not  to  be  made  against  parties  who  are  defending  themselves  (e.g.  directly  resisting  proceedings  already  brought  or  seeking  to  halt  self-­‐help  procedures)  and  thus  forced  to  litigate.        

Any  application  for  security  for  costs  should  be  made  promptly  as  it  is  “unfair  to  lull  P”  into  preparation  of  the  proceedings:  Avner  v  Dimopoulos    The  reason  why  delay  may  lead  the  court  in  the  interests  of  justice,  to  refuse  an  application  for  security  for  costs,  which  is  otherwise  right  and  proper,  is  that  it  is  unfair  to  lull  a  plaintiff  into  a  situation  where  it  invests  a  large  sum  of  money  in  preparation  for  a  hearing  and  then  to  frustrate  that  expenditure  by  a  last  minute  application.  

Non-­‐compliance  with  security  orders  may  result  in  the  court  dismissing  P’s  proceedings:  r  42.21  UCPRs  

Offers  of  compromise/Calderbank  letters  

Differences  • CL  lack  the  certainty  and  explicit  consequences  of  UCPR  formal  system  of  offer  of  compromise  • S  73  CPA  allows  the  court  to  determine  in  particular  proceedings  of  any  dispute  where  there  has  been  a  compromise  or  settlement  –  before  this  provision,  it  was  

not  entirely  clear  whether  separate  proceedings  were  needed  to  be  commenced  to  resolve  such  disputes  

Page 60: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

60  

Offers  of  compromise  

Making  an  offer  

Any  party  can  make  an  offer  at  any  time:  r  20.26  UCPR  

However,  offer  must  be  exclusive  of  costs:  subs  2  

Offer  must  state  offer  is  in  accordance  with  Pt  20  of  the  rules:  subs  3  

P  may  not  make  an  offer  unless  D  has  received  particulars  of  P’s  claim:  subs  4  

If  P  has  made  an  offer  and  D  feels  they  do  not  have  sufficient  information  to  make  a  decision,  they  can  ask  for  particulars  within  14  days  of  receipt  of  offer:  subs  5    

There  are  time  limits  to  how  long  the  offer  is  open  for  acceptance:  subs  7  

If  offer  was  made  at  least  2  months  before  trial  date,  closing  date  for  acceptance  of  offer  must  not  be  less  than  28  days:  subs  a  

If  offer  was  made  less  than  2  months  before  trial  date,  closing  date  for  acceptance  of  offer  is  what  is  reasonable  in  the  circumstances:  subs  b  

Accepting  or  rejecting  an  offer  

Offer  must  be  accepted  in  writing  within  28  days  (unless  otherwise  stated  in  the  offer)    

Table  of  entitlement  to  costs  Where  offer  made  by  

Is   By   Verdict  is  for  

Judgement  is  [no  less/less/  more]  favourable  

Entitlement  to  costs  

On  the  ordinary  basis   On  an  indemnity  basis  

Either   Accepted   Either   P   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐   P  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  D  for  P’s  costs  up  to  the  time  the  offer  was  made:  r  42.13A(2)  UCPR  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

D   -­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐   Parties  bear  their  own  costs:  r  42.13A(2)(a)  UCPR  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

P   Not  accepted  

D   P   No  less   P  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  D  for  P’s  costs  up  to  the  time  which  those  costs  are  

P  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  D  for  P’s  costs  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  before  trial)  as  from  beginning  of  

Page 61: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

61  

to  be  assessed  on  an  indemnity  basis  under  (b):  r  42.14(2)(a)  UCPR  

the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.14(2)(b)(i)  UCPR  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  after  trial)  as  from  11am  on  the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.14(2)(b)(ii)  UCPR  

D   Not  accepted  

P   P   Less   P  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  D  for  P’s  costs  up  to  the  time  which  those  costs  are  to  be  assessed  on  an  indemnity  basis  under  (b):  r  42.15(2)(a)  UCPR  

D  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  P  for  D’s  costs  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  before  trial)  as  from  beginning  of  the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.15(2)(b)(i)  UCPR  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  after  trial)  as  from  11am  on  the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.15(2)(b)(ii)  UCPR  

D   Not  accepted  

P   D   More   D  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  P  for  D’s  costs  up  to  the  time  which  those  costs  are  to  be  assessed  on  an  indemnity  basis  under  (b):  r  42.15A(2)(a)  UCPR  

D  is  entitled  to  an  order  against  P  for  D’s  costs  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  before  trial)  as  from  beginning  of  the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.15A(2)(b)(i)  UCPR  -­‐  (where  offer  was  made  after  trial)  as  from  11am  on  the  day  after  offer  was  made:  r  42.15A(2)(b)(ii)  UCPR  

If  accepted  and  unless  otherwise  specified  in  the  notice  of  offer,  all  payment  under  the  offer  must  be  made  within  28  days  of  the  offer:  r  20.26(8)  UCPR  

Calderbank  letter  

Form  

Must  make  clear  that  this  is  a  Calderbank  letter  by  either  saying  “this  is  a  Calderbank  letter”  or  “without  prejudice  except  with  costs”  –  this  allows  you  to  go  to  take  the  letter  to  court  to  prove  your  offer  and  be  able  to  apply  to  claim  for  indemnities  from  the  day  of  the  offer:  Calderbank  v  Calderbank  (1975)  This  is  because  cost  negotiations  are  confidential  –  by  saying  “except  with  costs”,  you  are  waiting  confidentiality  of  the  letter  in  respect  to  costs    

Offer  can  be  inclusive  or  exclusive  of  costs  Why  you  would  make  it  inclusive  of  costs?  I  don’t  know,  but  there  are  situations  that  it  might  arise  

Making  a  Calderbank  offer  

D’s  offer  must  be  a  genuine  offer  that  allows  an  appropriate  opportunity  for  the  other  party  to  consider  the  offer  

The  court  will  take  into  about  the  Offeror’s  circumstances  in  order  to  determine  whether  the  offer  was  genuine:  Maitland  Hospital  v  Fisher  (No  2)  (1992)  2.5%  difference  between  D’s  offer  and  the  judgement  sum  is  a  real  and  not  a  trivial  or  contemptuous  offer  –  however,  the  court  took  into  account  that  D  was  a  kitchen  maid  where  $6k  would’ve  been  a  significant  amount  

Page 62: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

62  

NSWCA  found  that  $129.24  difference  was  held  to  constitute  a  genuine  offer  of  compromise:  Forbes  Memorial  Club  v  Hodge  (1995)  Judgement  of  $30,129.24.  Offer  of  $30,000  

Generally,  a  “walk-­‐away”  offer  (i.e.  walk  away  from  the  proceedings  and  get  $X  and  each  party  pay  own  costs)  is  not  a  genuine  compromise:  Herning  v  GWS  (No  2)  (2005)  

However,  it  depends  on  the  circumstances  –  it  depends  on  whether  the  offer  in  the  circumstances  represented  a  genuine  attempt  to  reach  a  negotiated  settlement:  Leichhardt  v  Green  (2004)  per  Santow  J  This  is  opposed  to  an  attempt  to  merely  trigger  any  costs  sanctions  

Rejection  of  the  offer  must  be  unreasonable:  • Did  the  offeree  have  sufficient  time  to  consider  the  offer?  • Were  any  conditions  attached  to  the  offer  unreasonable.  The  simpler  the  offer,  the  better.  Conditions  just  make  it  more  likely  that  the  offeree  can  reject  the  offer  

with  impunity.  Offers  can  be  made  inclusive  of  costs  but  often  it  is  best  to  make  them  exclusive  of  costs.    • Offers  can  be  made  in  the  alternative  • If  there  is  an  appeal,  do  not  rely  on  a  pre-­‐trial  offer,  make  another  offer  after  the  trial  and  before  the  appeal.  

Rejection  of  an  offer  when  Offeree  know  there  is  evidence  that  will  go  against  him  may  be  held  unreasonable:  Blagojevch  v  Australian  Industrial  Relations  Commission  (2000)  Court  found  that  Offeree  had  rejected  offer  after  he  had  been  warned  of  a  challenge  to  the  truthfulness  of  his  evidence  (and  evidence  was  found  to  be  untrue)  

Greater  sympathy  accorded  to  Offeree  who  receives  offer  early  in  proceedings  where  there  has  been  no  reasonable  opportunity  for  it  to  assess  its  questions  of  liability  or  likely  exposure  in  damages  –  this  is  assessed  on  case-­‐by-­‐case  basis:  Elite  v  Salmon  (2007)  per  Basten  JA  The  court  suggested  that,  in  this  situation,  an  Offeree  should  state  that  more  time  is  needed  to  assess  its  situation  and,  if  necessary,  should  make  a  counter-­‐offer  

Where  cross-­‐claim  made  after  offer,  produces  a  change  in  circumstances  and  Offeree  rejects  on  this  basis,  it  may  be  considered  a  reasonable  rejection  of  offer:  Rolls  Royce  v  James  Hardie  (2001)  

Where  offer  is  subject  to  a  non-­‐monetary  condition  (e.g.  apology),  the  court  will  use  discretion  to  consider  reasonable  of  condition  and  assess  whether  judgement  result  was  more  favourable  than  the  offer:  Magenta  v  Richard  Ellis  (1995)  

Rejection  of  an  offer  conditional  upon  the  release  of  unrelated  proceedings  may  be  considered  reasonable:  Baulderstone  v  Gordian  (2006)      

Page 63: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

63  

Types  of  Calderbank  offers  

Offers  inclusive  of  costs:  Elite  v  Salmon  (2007)    

These  are  only  contentious  really  when  Offeree  rejects  an  offer  and  receives  a  judgement  less  than  that  amount  This  is  because  it  results  in  uncertainty  –  the  offer  included  an  unquantified  element  for  costs  incurred  up  to  the  time  when  it  was  lapsed  or  rejected  

• Of  course,  this  could  be  resolved  by  some  form  of  assessment,  but  if  the  calculation  of  damages  component  is  not  clearly  seen  to  provide  a  figure  above  the  judgement,  then  interests  of  justice  will  not  usually  be  served  by  incurring  extra  expense  in  assessing  costs:  per  Basten  JA  

Non-­‐conforming  rule  offers  

Rule  offers  that  do  not  conform  with  UCPR  requirements  should  not  automatically  be  considered  to  be  a  Calderbank  letter  –  it  depends  on  the  intention  of  the  Offeror  as  revealed  by  terms  of  the  offer:  Salvation  Army  v  Becker  (No  2)(2007)  per  Ipp  JA  I  would  caution  the  exercise  of  care  in  assuming  that  an  offer  that  fails  under  the  rules  will  be  treated  by  the  courts  as  constituting  a  Calderbank  offer.  The  rules  themselves  state  that  the  offer  must  state  that  it  is  an  offer  made  under  the  rules:  r  26.3(a)  UCPR…  if  it  is  correct  on  this  count  but  fails  on  other  technicalities,  it  is  clear  that  the  offer  was  not  a  Calderbank  letter  and  was  intended  to  be  an  offer  under  the  rules.    

Offer  of  compromise  limited  to  liability:  Vale  v  Eggins  (No  2)  (2007)  An  offer  may  be  made  limited  to  liability  

Offer  in  the  alternative:  Vale  v  Eggins  (No  2)(2007)  P  made  two  offers  –  one  was  limited  to  liability.  Other  was  of  a  money  sum  plus  costs.  

Offer  foregoing  interest  (as  you  are  entitled  to  under  ss  100  [up  to  judgement]  and  101  [after  judgement]  CPA):  Manly  Council  v  Byrne  (No  2)(2004)  Waiver  of  interest  payments  is  an  appropriate  offer  and  result  in  an  order  for  indemnity  costs  

Orders  

Calderbank  offer  does  not  automatically  result  in  the  court  making  an  order  for  indemnity  costs:  SMEC  v  Campbelltown  City  Council  (2000)  Rather,  the  court  has  to  determine  in  deciding  whether  to  award  indemnity  costs  is  the  Offeree’s  failure  to  accept  the  offer  warrants  departure  from  the  original  rule  as  to  costs  and  the  Offeree  ends  up  worse  off  than  if  the  offer  had  been  accepted  does  not  of  itself  warrant  a  departure  

Page 64: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

64  

Evidence  

Subpoenas  

The  power  to  issue  a  subpoena  is  set  out  in  s  68  CPA.  The  rules  in  regards  to  subpoenas  is  set  out  in  Pt  33  UCPR  

Formal  requirements:  r  33.3  UCPR  

The  approved  forms  are  Forms  25,  26  and  27  • 25  -­‐  a  subpoena  to  attend  and  give  evidence    • 26  -­‐  a  subpoena  to  produce  • 27  -­‐  a  subpoena  to  produce  and  to  give  evidence.  

The  last  day  of  service  of  a  subpoena  is  the  date  falling  5  days  before  the  earliest  date  that  the  addressee  is  required  to  comply  and  the  date  must  be  specified  in  the  subpoena:  r  33.3(8)  UCPR  

The  5  days  are  5  clear  days:  r  1.11  UCPR  

The  court  may  set  side  the  subpoena  on  application  of  a  party  or  person  with  sufficient  interest:  r  33.4  Notice  must  be  made  to  issuing  party:  subs  2  

Conduct  money  as  defined  in  r  33.1  UCPR  must  be  tendered  at  reasonable  time  before  date  attendance  is  required  before  the  person  is  required  to  comply:  r  33.6(1)  UCPR  

A  subpoena  may  not  be  used  as  a  substitute  for  discovery:  Commissioner  of  Railways  v  Small  (1938)  per  Jordan  CJ  

Subpoenas  may  only  be  used  for  a  legitimate  forensic  purpose  and  not  as  part  of  a  fishing  expedition  –  it  is  considered  to  be  an  abuse  of  process:  Small  (1938)  

A  subpoena  is  sent  out  to  3rd  parties  –  a  notice  to  produce  is  for  parties  to  proceedings    

Page 65: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

65  

Notice  to  produce  

The  power  to  issue  notices  to  produce  before  hearing  is  in  Pt  21  Div  2  UCPR  

A  party  must  produce  documents  or  things  that  are  referred  to  in  any  originating  process,  pleading,  affidavit  or  witness  statement  filed  or  served  that  is  clearly  identified  and  relevant  to  a  fact  in  issue:  r  21.10  UCPR  

The  approved  form  for  this  type  of  notice  is  form  19.  

Form  

21.11  –  sets  out  the  procedure  for  responding  to  a  notice  to  produce  and  states  that  14  days  is  taken  to  be  a  reasonable  period  of  time  between  service  of  the  notice  and  production.  That  period  could  be  either  extended  or  shortened  on  application  by  the  parties.  

21.12  -­‐  contains  a  limitation  on  notices  to  produce  issued  for  the  purpose  of  personal  injury  claims.  

21.13  –  makes  provisions  in  relation  to  the  costs  of  compliance.    

The  power  to  issue  notices  to  produce  at  hearing  is  in  Pt  34  UCPR  

The  approved  form  for  this  type  of  notice  is  form  19.  

Discovery  A  party  giving  discovery  must  list  all  the  documents  it  has  or  once  had  in  its  possession,  custody  or  power  that  fall  within  defined  categories  It  must  then  make  those  documents  available  for  inspection  by  the  other  side  subject  to  any  claim  for  privilege  it  may  make.  

Rules  for  discovery  are  in  Pt  21  UCPR  

It  is  generally  only  provided  by  leave  of  the  court:  r  21.2  UCPR  This  is  probably  why  the  police  in  Tuxford  tried  to  use  a  subpoena  (which  can  be  just  served  on  another  party)  rather  than  using  discovery  

Page 66: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

66  

Discovery  in  NSW  is  also  now  restricted  to  classes  of  documents:  r  21.2  UCPR  

General  discovery  doesn’t  really  exist  any  more:  Compagnie  Financiere  et  Commerciale  du  Pacifique  v  The  Peruvian  Guano  Co  (1882)  per  Brett  LJ,  followed  by  Mulley  v  Manifold  (1959)  at  345  per  Menzies  J  

An  excluded  document  is  one  of  the  following  (r  21.1(1)  UCPR)  

(a) any  document  filed  in  the  proceedings,  

(b) any  document  served  on  party  A  after  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings,  

(d) any  document  that  wholly  came  into  existence  after  the  commencement  of  the  proceedings,  

(c) any  additional  copy  of  a  document  included  in  the  list  of  documents,  being  a  document  that  contains  no  mark,  deletion  or    

(d) other  matter,  relevant  to  a  fact  in  question,  not  present  in  the  document  so  included  

(e) any  document  comprising  an  original  written  communication  sent  by  party  B  prior  to  the  date  of  commencement  of  the  proceedings  of  which  a  copy  is  included  in  the  list  of  documents,  

but  does  not  include  any  document  that  the  court  declares  not  to  be  an  excluded  document  for  the  purposes  of  those  proceedings.  

A  document  is  taken  to  be  “relevant  to  a  fact  in  issue”  if  it  could  rationally  affect  the  assessment  of  probability  of  the  existence  of  that  fact:  r  21.1(2)  UCPR  

Where  the  court  orders  discovery  on  a  party,  that  party’s  solicitor  must  provide  an  affidavit  and  certificate  supporting  a  list  of  documents,  swearing  on  the  completeness  of  the  list:  r  21.4  UCPR    

Lawyers  must  not  give  advice  to  destroy  documents  that  might  be  required  in  anticipated  legal  proceedings:  r  142A,  Legal  Profession  Regulation  2002  (NSW)  (After  McCabe)  British  American  Tobacco  had  a  company  policy  of  destructing  documents  –  Eames  J  found  that  a  fair  trial  was  impossible  as  this  policy  was  designed  to  prevent  evidence  from  being  obtained  –  destruction  was  so  great  the  Eames  J  found  that  striking  out  pleading  was  the  most  appropriate  form  of  action  –  however,  in  CA,  Eames  J  had  erred  as  he  had  not  considered  other  formed  of  reprimand  and  privilege  was  not  waived  so  evidence  relied  upon  was  incorrectly  submitted  

Page 67: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

67  

There  is  an  implied  undertaking  that  discovered  documents  can  only  be  used  in  proceedings  for  which  they  have  been  discovered,  unless  they  have  been  tendered  in  evidence:  Home  Office  v  Harman  (1983)  HO  produced  documents  –  counsel  for  other  party  read  documents  onto  transcript  –  solicitor  for  other  party  gave  journalist  access  to  documents  –  majority  held  that  this  was  a  breach  of  implied  undertaking  –  there  was  dissenting  judgement  that,  once  read  on  transcript,  they  lost  their  confidential  character,  but  this  is  not  the  standing  view  

This  was  considered  in  HCA  and  found  that  a  party  cannot  use  a  document  that  is  produced  pursuant  to  a  compulsory  process  of  the  court  otherwise  than  for  the  purpose  of  the  proceedings  that  it  is  produced:  Hearne  v  Street  (2008)  Neighbours  of  Luna  Park  sued  the  company  that  operated  the  park  in  nuisance  –  served  affidavit  in  support  of  their  claim  –  allegations  from  affidavit  were  reported  in  article  in  papers  in  disparaging  terms  –  neighbours  complained  that  LP  had  released  affidavits  –  solicitors  for  LP  apologies  and  agreed  to  undertaking  that  extended  to  directors  –  LP  directors  in  cahoots  with  govt  to  pass  legislation  that  would  override  the  ruling  in  this  case  –  found  that  disclosure  of  affidavit  evidence  was  made  to  govt  as  a  result  of  interrogatories  

Interrogatories  These  are  a  list  of  question  that  you  serve  upon  another  party  –  they  are  required  to  answer  on  oath  

This  is  different  from  particulars  as  these  are  answered  on  oath  and  seek  admissions  from  other  parties  

This  is  also  different  from  notice  to  admit  facts  (r  17.3  UCPR)  where,  if  you  serve  notice  to  admit  facts  and  other  party  does  not  respond,  it  is  assumed  correct  

Other  party  must  reply  within  14  days  of  service:  r  17.3(2)  UCPR  

However,  the  other  party  may  withdraw  admission  with  leave  of  the  court:  r  17.3(3)  UCPR  

Interrogatories  cannot  be  made  without  special  reasons  and  may  only  be  made  by  order  from  the  court:  r  22.1  UCPR  

“Special  reasons”  are  reasons  “out  of  the  ordinary,  extraordinary  or  exceptional”:  O’Meara  v  Arianayagam  (2006)  per  Latham  J  

Where  granted  by  the  court,  parties  may  object  on  the  basis  or  relevance  or  vexatious  or  oppressiveness:  r  22.2  UCPR  Also  relevant  is  privileged  information  

Vexatiousness  and  oppressiveness  is  governed  by  the  proportionality  principles  in  s  61  CPA    

Page 68: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

68  

There  also  needs  to  be  a  test  for  relevance:  American  Flange  v  Rheem  (1965)  

Examples  of  necessary  interrogatories  • pedestrian  accident  —  plaintiff  with  no  memory  and  no  eye  witnesses  —  interrogatories  as  to  details  of  accident:  Griebart  v  Morris  [1920]  1  KB  659;  • infant  plaintiff  —  contemporaneous  police  statement  by  defendant  —  interrogatories  as  to  accident  details:  Schutt  v  Queenan  [2000]  NSWCA  341;  BC200007963  at  

[11]–[14];  • fatal  accident  —  widow’s  claim  —  scope  of  available  evidence  unclear  —  error  of  principle  in  refusing  interrogatories:  Yamazaki  v  Mustaca  [1999]  NSWSC  1083;  

BC9907282;  • damages  arising  out  of  personal  injury  at  school  —  evidentiary  difficulties  without  interrogatories  —  order  reasonably  necessary  for  disposing  fairly  of  the  matter:  

Boyle  v  Downs  [1979]  1  NSWLR  192  at  204–5;  • medical  negligence  claim  —  interrogatories  relevant  to  diagnostic  evaluation  and  professional  expertise  —  necessary:  Chong  v  Nguyen  [2005]  NSWSC  588;  

BC200507146  at  [9]–[16];  • medical  negligence  claim  —  interrogatories  relating  to  doctor’s  knowledge  and  diagnostic  reasoning:  Keating  v  South  East  Sydney  Illawarra  Area  Health  Service  

(NSWSC,  Hall  J,  No  20232  of  2005,  7  July  2006,  unreported).  

Examples  of  unnecessary  interrogatories  • proposed  interrogatories  directed  to  material  matters  already  admitted  or  that  could  readily  be  proved  by  a  witness  likely  to  be  called  at  the  trial  —  not  necessary:  

McBride  v  Sandland  [1917]  SALR  249;  • interrogatory  requesting  names  of  persons  to  whom  defamatory  statement  was  published  —  not  necessary:  White  &  Co  v  Credit  Reform  Assn  [1905]  1  KB  653;  • interrogatory  about  intended  meaning  of  defamatory  statement  —  not  necessary:  Heaton  v  Goldney  [1910]  1  KB  754;  • interrogatory  that  would  require  a  party  to  provide  an  acknowledgement  contrary  to  a  pleaded  limitation  defence  —  not  necessary:  Lovell  v  Lovell  [1970]  3  All  ER  

721;  [1970]  1  WLR  1451;  • workplace  related  psychiatric  injury  —  interrogatories  substantially  directed  towards  adequacy  of  discovery  —  no  special  reasons:  Cavric  v  Cooper  Lybrand  (ACT)  

Ltd  [2002]  NSWSC  538;  BC200203290;  • interrogatories  to  identify  medical  attendances  by  proposed  adoptive  parents  —  no  issue  of  fitness  —  interrogatories  intended  to  explore  possibility  of  unfitness:  

Director-­‐General,  Dept  of  Community  Services  v  D  (2006)  66  NSWLR  582;  [2006]  NSWSC  827;  BC200606433  

Relevant  forms  are  Form  21  for  interrogatories  and  For  22  for  statement  of  answers  to  interrogatories      

Page 69: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

69  

Judgement  

Generally  

Power  of  the  court:  s  90  CPA  This  gives  the  court  power  to  give  judgements  generally  

r  36.1  UCPR  gives  court  a  power  to  make  a  judgement  as  the  case  requires  

Consent  orders  allow  judges  to  affirm  the  settlement  agreement  between  parties:  r  36.1A  UCPR  

Must  be  filed  under  this  rule  to  bring  proceedings  to  an  end  

Reasons  for  judgements  must  be  given:  r  36.2  UCPR  

Can  also  be  given  ex  tempore  –  reasons  do  not  need  to  be  given  orally  as  long  as  written  reasons  are  provided  after  the  fact:  r  36.2(1)  UCPR  

The  date  judgement  goes  into  effect  is  the  date  it  was  given  or  made:  r  36.4(1)(a)  UCPR  

Alternatively,  it  can  be  the  date  it  is  entered:  r  36.4(1)(b)  UCPR  

Effect  of  judgement  

Res  judicata  

Concerned  with  the  remedy  or  relief  granted  in  a  given  set  of  circumstances:  Rogers  v  R  (1994)  

Essentially,  the  principle  is  that  any  judicial  decision  on  any  issue  between  2  parties  is  conclusive  and  cannot  be  re-­‐litigated      

Page 70: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

70  

Issue  estoppel  

Concerned  with  the  determination  of  issues:  Rogers  v  R  (1994)  

Principle  is  that,  once  decided,  an  issue  cannot  be  ventilated  again  between  the  same  parties  (this  means  that  parties  will  be  estopped  from  pleading  the  same  COA  again)  

Anshun  estoppel  

Concerned  with  a  claim  so  closely  connected  with  the  subject  matter  of  a  previous  action  that  it  was  expected  that  it  would  be  relied  upon  as  defence  to  that  claim  

Principle  is  that,  if  an  issue  was  available  in  the  first  instance  and  not  raised,  it  cannot  be  raised  in  subsequent  proceedings  

Appeals  

Appeals  to  supervisory  jursidction  This  is  in  regards  to  errors  in  jursidction  or  denials  of  natural  justice  

Appeals  to  questions  of  law  only  This  is  in  regards  to  undetermined  or  wrongly  determined  issues  of  fact  that  must  be  remitted  

Appeals  after  trial  before  judge  and  jury  The  result  will  be  disturbed  if  judge  fell  into  error  of  law  or  if  jury’s  errors  of  fact  transcend  bounds  of  reason  

• Except  for  assessment  of  damages,  issues  of  fact  must  be  re-­‐trialled  

Page 71: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

71  

Appeals  from  a  judge  –  there  must  be  an  error  of  law  

Rehearings  

A  person  aggrieved  by  an  award  may  apply  for  a  rehearing  (s  42(1)  CPA)  and  award  is  suspended  from  time  of  application  until  order  for  rehearing  is  made  (s  42(3)  CPA)  

A  rehearing  must  be  ordered  if  the  application  was  made  before  award  took  effect  (s  43(1)  CPA)  and  the  amount  claimed  in  proceedings  exceeds  the  jurisdictional  limit  of  the  LC  in  the  Small  Claims  Division,  i.e.  $10k  (s  43(2)  CPA)  

Further:  s  43  CPA  (3)  An  order  for  rehearing  need  not  be  made  if  it  appears  to  the  court  that  the  applicant  failed  to  attend  a  hearing  before  an  arbitrator  without  good  reason.  (4)  In  an  order  for  rehearing,  the  referring  court  may  direct  that  the  rehearing  be  a  full  rehearing  or  a  limited  rehearing,  as  the  court  thinks  appropriate,  and  may  do  so  regardless  of  whether  the  applicant  requested  a  full  rehearing  or  a  limited  rehearing  or  made  no  such  request.  (5)  In  the  absence  of  a  direction  under  subsection  (4),  the  rehearing  is  to  be  a  full  rehearing.  (6)  An  order  for  a  limited  rehearing  must  specify  the  aspects  that  are  to  be  the  subject  of  the  rehearing,  whether  by  reference  to  specific  issues  in  dispute,  specific  parties  to  the  dispute  or  otherwise.  (7)  The  referring  court  may  amend  an  order  for  rehearing  at  any  time  before  or  during  a  rehearing.  

Appeals  of  a  hearing  de  novo  Fresh  hearing  

Procedure  –  follow  PN  SC  CA  1  A  notice  of  intention  to  appeal  must  be  filed  within  28  days  of  the  material  date  as  defined  in  r  51.2  and  originating  process  must  be  serve  within  3  months  of  material  date    

Page 72: Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

 

72  

Enforcement  

Judgement  must  be  entered  before  it  can  be  enforced:  s  133(1)  CPA  

A  registrar  must  furnish  a  sealed  copy  of  any  judgement  or  order  to  anyone  who  applies  for  a  copy:  r  36.12  UCPR  

The  exception  is  any  proceedings  under  the  Adoption  Act  2000  –  this  may  only  delivered  to  P  unless  court  orders  otherwise:  r  36.12(3)  UCPR  

An  instalment  order  can  be  made  where  they  have  no  assets:  Pt  8  CPA,  Pt  39  UCPR  

Once  complied  with  orders,  must  satisfy  the  court  by  filing  a  writ  of  execution  

Application  is  under  r  39.2  UCPR  

Application  must  accompanied  by  an  affidavit  in  support  of  application  of  writ  of  execution:  r  39.3  UCPR  

If  cannot  comply  with  orders,  can  apply  for  a  garnishee  order  (i.e.  take  money  out  of  your  pay  directly)  –  a  r  39.34  UCPR  application  can  be  filed  to  do  so  

Application  must  accompanied  by  an  affidavit  in  support  of  application  of  writ  of  execution:  r  39.35  UCPR  

In  the  SC  or  DC,  a  judgement  debt  may  be  enforced  by  a  charging  order:  s  106(1)(c)  CPA  

A  charging  order  charges  a  security  interest  in  favour  of  the  judgement  creditor  as  far  as  it  is  necessary  to  satisfy  the  judgement:  s  126(2)(a)  CPA  

This  provision  also  restrains  charge  from  dealing  with  the  security  interest  unless  directed  by  the  judgement  creditor:  s  126(2)(b)