Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
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
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
EMBARRASSING
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
20
1
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
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
Ds
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
Ds,
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
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
its
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
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
ONeill
(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
courts
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
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
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
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
companys
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
dont
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
companys
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
companys
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
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
partys
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
Ps
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
Counter
claims
against
P
do
not
have
to
related
or
connected
to
Ps
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
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
courts
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
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
10
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
its
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
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
Ds
(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
11
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
applicants
case
....................................................................................................................................................................................
59
Whether
the
applicants
impecuniosity
was
caused
by
the
respondents
conduct
subject
of
the
claim
................................................................................................................................................
59
Whether
the
respondents
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
Ps
proceedings:
r
42.21
UCPRs
......................................................................................................................................................
59
12
The
court
will
take
into
about
the
Offerors
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
rd
A
subpoena
is
sent
out
to
3
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
13
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
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
doesnt
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
partys
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:
OMeara
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
14
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
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
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
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
15
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
16
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
doesnt
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
courts
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,
17
(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
courts
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
18
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
Ps 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
19
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
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
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
didnt
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:
Campbells
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
20
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
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
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.
Cons
Suitability
may
not
be
suitable
for
every
dispute,
.e.g
precedents
to
be
set,
public
interest
case,
etc
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
Lack
of
enforceability
50-85%
More
satisfying
for
parties
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
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
didnt
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
Things
to
consider
b
-
Reasonable
prospe
-
Limitation
periods
-
Summons
or
SOC?
-
Jurisdiction/Cross-
-
Interlocutory
proce
-
Alternative
Disput
-
Mediation
-
Subpoenas
-
Notices
to
produce
-
Case
management
Commencing
proceedings
Step
1
What
to
do
In
writing,
inform
P
of
the
requirements
under
the
District
Court
Practice
Note
1
(DC
PN
1)
before
commencing
proceedings
or
filing
a
dispute
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
Ps
case
has
reasonable
prospects
of
success:
s.
347
LPA
Who?
PS
P/PS
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
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
CDs
case
has
reasonable
prospects
of
success:
s.
347
LPA
Subpoenas
must
file
to
3rd
parties
as
soon
as
possible:
cl.
6.1
DC
PN
1
CD
P/PS
Legend:
P
=
Plaintiff
D
=
Defendant
CD
=
Cross
Defendan
PS
=
Ps
Solicitor
DS
=
Ds
Solicitor
CDS
=
CDs
solicitor
Things
to
consider
o
-
Interlocutory
proce
-
Cross
vesting
-
Particulars
-
Judgement
before
means
show
cause
-
Discovery
-
Subpoenas
-
Notices
to
produce
-
Affidavits
-
Case
management
All
24
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)).
Standing?
P
must
be
a
person
aggrieved
or
have
a
special
interest
before
they
have
standing
to
commence
proceedings
25
Also
consider:
Are
legal
entities
correct?
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
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
26
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))
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)
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
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)
28
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)
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
29
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)
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
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
30
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)
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
persons
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)
31
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
(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,
dont
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
partys
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)
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)
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
ONeill
(2006)
Interlocutory
injunction
to
prevent
ABC
from
screening
a
doco
that
implies
that
ONeill,
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
For
lower
courts,
this
power
comes
from
the
courts
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
34
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
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
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)
2)
3)
4)
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?
Work
injury
Motor
accident
Period
6
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
14(1)(a)
6
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
14(1)(b)
6
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
48
12
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
16
12
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
27(2)
1
year
from
date
of
publication:
s
14B
3
years
from
date
on
which
COA
accrues
to
the
P:
s
18A(2)
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)
3
years
after
date
on
which
injury
was
received:
s
151D
Workers
Compensation
Act
1987
(NSW)
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
36
Must
know
of
ALL
jurisdictions
and
be
aware
of
and
need
to
scope
to
determine
where
you
will
commence
proceedings
37
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
HCAs
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
38
Ps
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
39
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
persons
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))
Service
on
a
corporation
By
Corporations
Act
2001
(Cth),
service
is
by
leaving
it
or
posting
it
to
the
companys
registered
office:
s
109X(1)(a)
CA
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)
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
41
(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 dont 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
companys
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
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)
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
companys
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
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)
(2)
(3)
(4)
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
partys
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
defendants
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
44
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))
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)
b)
c)
d)
Proceedings
on
a
claim
for
relief
in
relation
to
a
debt
or
other
liquidated
claim
(UCPR,
r
6.3(a))
Proceedings
on
a
claim
for
relief
in
relation
to
a
tort
(UCPR,
r
6.3(b))
Proceedings
on
a
claim
based
on
an
allegation
of
fraud
(UCPR,
r
6.3(c))
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))
The
name
of
the
court
in
which
proceedings
are
to
be
commenced
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(a))
If
relevant,
the
division
in
which
the
proceeding
are
intended
to
be
heard
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(b))
The
venue
at
which
the
proceedings
are
intended
to
be
heard
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(c))
The
title
of
the
proceedings
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(d))
The
nature
of
the
process
(summons
or
statement
of
claim)
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(e))
If
the
process
is
filed
by
a
person
who
is
neither
the
party
nor
the
partys
solicitor
or
solicitors
agent,
the
capacity
in
which
the
person
acts
when
filing
the
document
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(f))
g) The
partys
address
and
the
partys
address
for
service
(UCPR,
r
4.2(1)(g))
46
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))
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
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
wouldve
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
partys
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)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
48
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)
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:
Ps
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
49
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
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
50
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
Ps
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
51
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
52
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
persons
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
Ps
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
53
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
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)
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,
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
its
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
55
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
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
56
This
is
a
situation
where
there
is
one
P
and
two
Ds
(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
Court
has
power
to
order
P
to
give
security
for
Ds
cost
of
defending
Ps
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
57
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.
58
That
regard
is
to
be
had
to
the
strength
and
bona
fides
of
the
applicants
case
Whether
the
applicants
impecuniosity
was
caused
by
the
respondents
conduct
subject
of
the
claim
Whether
the
respondents
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 Ps proceedings: r 42.21 UCPRs
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
59
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
Ps
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
Is
Either
Accepted
By
Either
Verdict
is
for
D
P
Not
accepted
On
an
indemnity
basis
----
----
P
is
entitled
to
an
order
against
D
for
Ps
costs
-
(where
offer
was
made
before
trial)
as
from
beginning
of
60
Not
accepted
Less
Not
accepted
More
to
be
assessed
on
an
indemnity
basis
under
the
day
after
offer
was
made:
r
42.14(2)(b)(i)
UCPR
(b):
r
42.14(2)(a)
UCPR
-
(where
offer
was
made
after
trial)
as
from
11am
on
the
day
after
offer
was
made:
r
42.14(2)(b)(ii)
UCPR
P
is
entitled
to
an
order
against
D
for
Ps
D
is
entitled
to
an
order
against
P
for
Ds
costs
costs
up
to
the
time
which
those
costs
are
-
(where
offer
was
made
before
trial)
as
from
beginning
of
to
be
assessed
on
an
indemnity
basis
under
the
day
after
offer
was
made:
r
42.15(2)(b)(i)
UCPR
(b):
r
42.15(2)(a)
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
is
entitled
to
an
order
against
P
for
Ds
D
is
entitled
to
an
order
against
P
for
Ds
costs
costs
up
to
the
time
which
those
costs
are
-
(where
offer
was
made
before
trial)
as
from
beginning
of
to
be
assessed
on
an
indemnity
basis
under
the
day
after
offer
was
made:
r
42.15A(2)(b)(i)
UCPR
(b):
r
42.15A(2)(a)
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
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
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)
62
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
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
Offerees
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
63
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
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
64
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.
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.
65
(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
partys
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
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)
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:
OMeara
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
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
widows
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
2045;
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
doctors
knowledge
and
diagnostic
reasoning:
Keating
v
South
East
Sydney
Illawarra
Area
Health
Service
(NSWSC,
Hall
J,
No
20232
of
2005,
7
July
2006,
unreported).
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
68
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
69
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
70
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
71
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)
72