Civil Litigation law exam notes - super summary

CivilLitigationexamnotes TableofContents GENERALPRINCIPLE S.......................................... S................................................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .......................17 17

PROCEDURALVS SUBSTANTIVE LAW: JOHNPFEIFFERV ROGERSON (1997)............................................ (1997)............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................17 17 Substantivelaw=legalrights,duties,powersandliabilities ............................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................17  17  Procedurallaw=lawthatgovernsthemethodbywhichrightsaresoughttobeenforced..........................................................................................................................17  Procedurallawisnotlessimportantthansubstantivelaw:BathurstCJNSWSC...........................................................................................................................................17  CASEMANAGEMENT .............................................. ............................................................................................. ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ....................................................17 ....17 Overridingpurposeisthatallcivilmattersmustfacilitatethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesindispute:s56CPA.......................................................17  Just:.................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............18 ..............18 Thecourtmustactinaccordancew iththedictatesofjustice:s58CPA.................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........18 18 However,justiceisexpressednotonlybythecourt’sacknowledgementoftherightsofthepartiestotheproceedings,butalsoconsideringtheinterestsofotherlitigantsandthepublic:Aonv ANU(2009)............................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................18 Quick:......................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ...................18 ...................18 Theefficientdisposalofthebusinessofthecourt:s57CPA.......................................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................18 ....................18 Practiceandprocedurebeingimplemented withtheobjectofeliminatinganylap seoftime:s59CPA............................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... ..18 18 Cheap:........................................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ...................18 ...................18

s56CPArequire salllitigants incivilproceedi ngsinNSWSCt oactasmodell itigants:Priest vNSW(200 7)............................................................................................. .................................................................................................18 ....18 Rulings:.................................. 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im portanceandcomplexityofthesubject-matt erindispute:s60CPA................................. ................................... ................................... ....................18 ....................18 Theconceptofproportionalityofcostsin s60caninfluencethedemandsthatthecou rtplacesonparties:e.g.ZanellavMadden(2007 )................................ )................................ ................................... ....................18 ....................18 Theconceptofproportionalityofcostsin s60canalsoeffectlitigationinotherways:e.g.VellavANZ( 2008).............................................. .................................... ................................... ..............19 ..............19

Rulesgenerally: ............................................. ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ....................................................19 ....19 UniformCivilProcedureRulesoperateinconjunc tionwithCPA,theyareaffirmedbytheCPA:s10CPA..... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........19 19 Whererulesareinconsistent,uniformruleswillprevailoveranylocalrules:s11C PA................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..19 19 P’smustnotcommenceproceeding sunlesstheyarereadytocomplywiththerules:DCPN1...................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................19 IntheSupremeCourt,ageneralcasemanag ementdocumentmustbefiledwithorig inatingprocess:SCPN5 inatingprocess:SCPN5............................... ............................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........19 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determinati onofissuesbetweenparties:subs1......................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............19 ..............19 Non-compliancemayresultinthecourtdism issingorstrikingoutproceedings,ormayenterju dgementorcostsorderasthecourtseesappropriate:subs3.............................................................. ........19 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proc eedingsbasedonlackofduedispatchbyeitherparty:Phornp isutikulvMileto(2006)........................................ ................................... ........19 19

PRACTICENOTES ................................................................... .................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ................................................................................... ....................................20 20 CreationofPNs: s15CPA............................................................................. s15CPA............................................................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...................................................20 ....20 PNsaresubjecttoUCPR............................... PNsaresubjecttoUCPR ............................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..20 20

EMBARRASSING ............................................................................ ........................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................20 20 1

Embarrassingdefined: PriestvNSW............................................. PriestvNSW............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...................................................................20 ....................20 Embarrassingfurther defined:MeckiffvS impson(1968) ............................................ ............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ................................................................................... ....................................20 20 ABUSEOFPROCESS ........................................ ........................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...........................................................20 ............20  Allcourtshaveinh erentpowersnecessary toenableitto acteffectively, tocontrolitso wnproceedingsand preventabuseofproc ess:JagovDistri ctCourtofNS W (1989)(forSupremeCourt),JacksonvSterling(1987)(forlowercourts).......................................................................................................................................................20 Tostartproceedingswithnomeritwhatsoeverisanabuseofprocess:WhiteindustriesvFlower&Hart(1998)........................................................................................20 Litigationfundingisnotanabuseofprocessorcontrarytopublicpolicy:Campbell’sCashandCarryvFostif(2006)perGummow,HayneandCrennanJJ......................20 PRIVILEGE .................................................... .................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...........................................................21 ............21 Dominantpurposet est:Esso(199 9)............................................. 9)............................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...................................................................21 ....................21 AFFIDAVITS .......................................................................... ......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ................................................................................... ....................................21 21 Evidencesetout inaffidavitsarean exceptiontos3 2EvidenceAct: Lindsay-Owen vLake(2000 )perHodgsonCJ........................................... )perHodgsonCJ...................................................................................... ...........................................21 21 Contrarytos59EvidenceAct,hearsayevidenceisallowedininterlocutoryproceedings:s75EvidenceAct...............................................................................................21  Allevidencemust bebasedonknowled ge,informationan dbelief:s172 EA............................................................................. EA............................................................................................................................ ...................................................................21 ....................21 Noticeofaffidavitsmustbeservedtootherparties:s173EA.......................................................................................................................................................................21 PartyAwhotendersaffidavitsmustcallpersonwhomadeevidenceifPartyBrequests,butdo esn’thavetounlessrequested:r35.2UCPR....... ................................... ................................... ....................21 ....................21 Wheredeponenthasdied,hearsayrule(s59EA)doesnotapplyandaffidavitmaycontainhearsayevidence–obviousthisalsomeansthatthepersonalsocannotbecalledforcrossexamination:ss 63and67EvidenceAct........................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..21 21 Irregularitydoesnotinvalidateaffidavit:r35.1UCPR........................................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..21 21

Ifalterationismadetoafiledaffidavit,itcannotbeusedunlesspersonwhosworeaffidavitinitialsallchanges:r35.5UCPR..................................................................21 However,bestpracticeistogetanewonere-sworniftheaffidavithasnotbeenfiled asyet,orre-submitanewoneandwithdrawtheoldone.................. ................................... ................................21

Ethicsaroundaffid avits–see:ethi csnotes.......................... csnotes......................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................21 21 PRE-LITIGATION......................................................... PRE-LITIGATION................................... ............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ...................................... ...............22 22

ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)......................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ........................................................................... ............................22 22 CasemanagementrequirementsinFederalCourts:CivilDisputeResolutionAct2011(Cth) .............................................. ............................................................................................. ........................................................................... ............................22 22 ProsandconsofADR............................................................................ ProsandconsofADR............................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ...........................................................22 ............22 DEFINITIONALSTAGE .......................................... ................................................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .......................23 23

ETHICALCONSTRAINTSONLAWYERS ......................................... ........................................................................................ ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ................................................................................... ....................................23 23 Thereisanethicalrequirementonlawyerstobetimelyandefficientintheircontactoflitigation:rrA.15-A.15B,AdvocacyRulesintheRevisedProcessionalConductand PracticeRules 1995............................................... 1995.............................................................................................. ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ........................................................................................... ............................................23 23 Theremustbereasonableprospectsofsuccess:s345LPA............................................................................................................................................................................23 Certificateassertingthereasonableprospectsofsuccessmustb esignedbysolicitor:s347LPA................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........23 23 Reasonableprospectsofsuccessisdefinedbythebasisofprovablefactsandareasonablyarg uableviewofthelaw................................. ................................... .................................... .........................23 ForP,theremustbeareasonableprospectofdamagesbeing recoveredontheclaim:s345(1)LPA............. .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................23 ForD,theremustbeareasonableprospectofthedefencedefeatin gtheclaimorleadingtoareduction inthedamagesrecoveredontheclaim:s345(4) LPA................................. LPA................................. .........................23 Tostartproceedingswithnomeritwha tsoeverisanabuseofprocess:WhiteindustriesvFlower&Hart(1998) .................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..23 23

Mustfacilitateproceedingstobejust,quickandcheap:s56CPA.................................................................................................................................................................23 Non-compliancemayresultincostsordersagain stlawyers:s99CPA.............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..23 23

2

COMMENCINGP ROCEEDINGS................. ROCEEDINGS........................................ .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................................. ............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .................................. ...........24 24

WHOARETHEPARTIES ?................................................. ?................................................................................................. ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. ........................................................................................... ............................................25 25  A“personunderlegal incapacity”............................................................................... incapacity”............................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................... ................................................................................... ....................................25 25 Apersonunderalegalincapacitymaynotcom menceorcarryonproceedingsexceptbyhisorhertutor:r7.1 4(1)UCPR......................... ................................... ................................... ................................25 Further,unlessthecourtordersotherwise,thetutorofapersonund erlegalincapacitymaynotcommenceorcarryon proceedingsexceptbyasolicitor:r7.14(2) UCPR............................... ............................... ..............25 ..............25 “Personunderlegalincapacity”defined........................................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................25 ....................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perso nwhohasinterestintheproceedings(UC PR,r7.15(2)(c))...................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........25 25 Documentsrequiredtovalidlyappointatut or................................. ................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................25 Standing?.............................. .............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................25 Alsoconsider:................................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................26 ....................26 Arelegalentitiescorrect?............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................26 Correctdefendant?Ensureyouaresuingtheco rrectD.............................. rrectD.............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................26 ....................26 Preliminarydiscovery–itmustoccurintheinitialprocess:Pt5UCPR.................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..26 26 DiscoveryforprospectiveD’sidentityandwhereabouts....................................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................26 ....................26 Thecourtmaymakeeitherorbothofthefollo wingordersagainstotherpersoninrelationtodi scoverytoascertainthis...................... .................................... ................................... ..............26 ..............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commencin g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 ....................26 Applicationforpreliminarydiscovery.............................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..27 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 27 ANOMmustalsobeservedoneachpersoneffectedbyproposedorder:r18 .2UCPR................................. ................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................27 ....................27 Asummons(r6.2(3)) andaffidavit(r5.2(7)(b))m ustbepersonallyservedonotherperson.............................. .............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................27 ....................27 Noticemustbepersonallyservedwherepersonisnotpartytoproc eedings(r18.5(a))orispartytoproc eedingsbutnotactive(r18.5(b) )............................................ ...............................27 DiscoverytodeterminewhetherthereissufficientinformationtocommenceproceedingsagainstD ............................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........27 27 Thisapplicationismadebysummo ns:r6.4(1)(c)UCPR............................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........27 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”:Alp hapharmvEliLilly(1996).................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............27 ..............27 ThreesituationswheretheCourtmayorderdisc overy......................................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............27 ..............27 Joiningproceedings:Pt6,UCPR...................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..27 27 IftherearemultipleD’s,ensurethereisacauseofactionagainstEAC Hdefendant............................................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............27 ..............27 Considerjoindersifthereareoverlappingcausesofaction,d efendantsorevenplaintiffs...................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........28 28 Typesofjoinders........................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................28 Keyisbasedontherelevanttransactionorthesameseriesoftransactions:PaynevYoung(1980) .................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............28 ..............28 Meaningoftransactionisnotlimitedtoaco ntractualtransaction:BendirvAnson(193 6)........................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................28 Indictaarisingoutofahypotheticalcon text,BirtlesvCth(1960)gaveabroaderinterpretatio nof“transaction”............................. .................................... .................................... .........................28 ThiswasallreinedinwithPaynevYoung.............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................28 Joiningofparties:rr6.19-6.28................ ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..28 28 Courtpowerstoremovejoinder...................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........28 28 Wherepartiesareimproperlyorunneceesarilyjoined,orwherej oinderisnolongernecessaryorproper,courtcanremo vetheoffendingparty:r6.29UCPR......................................................28

3

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sam eseriesoftransactions:PaynevYoung(1980),r6 .19(1)(b)UCPR. ................................... .................................... ...............................29 Thetrials,ifconsideredseparately,wouldresultincom monquestionsoflawandfact:r6.19(1 )(a)UCPR............................................................ ................................... .................................... ..29 Evenwheretheseconditionsarenotfulfilled,thecourth asdiscretiontograntleaveforPstojoininthesameproceeding s:r6.19UCPR...................................... ................................... ..............29 Forjudicialdiscretion,thecourtsh ouldconsidertheoverridingpurposeofss56-60C PA:Dean-WilcocksvAirTransitInternational(200 2)................................................. ...............................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h asdiscretiontograntleaveforDstojoininthesameproc eedings:r6.19UCPR............................................................. ..........................29 Forjudicialdiscretion,thecourtsh ouldconsidertheoverridingpurposeofss56-60C PA:Dean-WilcocksvAirTransitInternational(200 2)................................................. ...............................30 Onceconsidered,theymustdoabalancin gexercisetoweighupadvantagesanddisadvant ages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proceedin gsandthecourtcanorderproceedingsbestayedu ntil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j oint,severalorinthealternative.............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... .........................30 Retrospectivejoinders:rr6.19(2)and6.2 4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proc eedingsiftheyfeelthepartyoughttobejoined,o rit’sjoinderisnecessarytothedeterminationoftheproceeding s:r6.24...................................30 Thisincludesnon-partywhoisinpossessionofwho leorpartoflandthatisindisputeintheproceeding smaybeaddedasaD:r6.24(2)....................................................... ................................30 Ifthejoinderisordered/granted,thedateofcom mencementofproceedingsforthatpartyisthedayinwh ich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p roper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again stmorethanoneD,irrespectiveofwhetherornoteachpersonh as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co ntrarytopublicpolicy:CampbellsCashandC arryvFostif(2006)perGummow ,HayneandCrennanJJ............ ................................... ....................32

4

INTERLOCUTORYPROCEEDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32  Ajudgementisint erlocutorywherea norderdeterminesfin alrightsofanmat terpendingbetw eentwoparties: Anshun.........................................................................32 Typesofinterlocut oryorders..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 Interlocutoryapplicationsaredonebyfilinganoticeofmotion:Pt18UCPR................................................................................................................................................32 Noticemustbefiledoneachpartyandbeaccomp aniedwithanaffidavit:r18.1UCPR................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........32 GenerallyNOMmustbefiled(r18.2(1)UCPR) ,butdoesnotneedtointhefollowing situations(r18.2(2)UCPR) ................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..32 (a) thatpersonconsentstothemakingo ftheorder,or............................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............32 (b) thepreparation,filingorserviceofthenoticewou ldcauseunduedelayorotherprejudicetothep ersonbywhomtheorderissought,or................................... ................................... ..............33 (c) thecourtdispenseswiththerequirementforsuchn oticetobefiledorserved,or................................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................33 (d) undertheserulesorthepracticeofthecourt,themo tionmaybemadewithoutthepriorfiling orservice(asthecasemaybe)ofnoticeofmotion................................ .................................... ..33 NOMmustbeservedatleast3daysbeforedatefixedformotion:r18.4UCPR.................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ..33 NOMmustbepersonallyservedonthosewhohavenotenteredanappea rance:r18.5UCPR.................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........33 WhereNOMhasbeencorrectlyserved,mattermaybedealtwithineith erparty’sabsence:r18.7UCPR................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............33 Directionsastoaresultofaninterlocutoryhearingism adeunderr18.9UCPR................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................33 N.B.inregardstohearsayevidence,contrarytos59EvidenceAct,hea rsayevidenceisallowedininterlocutoryproceeding s:s75EvidenceAct...................................................... ................................... ..33

Interimpreservationorders–maybeusedbeforeorafteractioniscommenced.........................................................................................................................................33 Injunctiverelief:r25.2(1)(c) UCPR................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................33 Todoso,applicantmustshowa“PFc ase”andthat“balanceofconvenience”favourstheorderbein g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stag eofproceedingswhereitisjustorconvenienttod osobyinherentjurisdictionands66(4) SupremeCourtAct1970(NSW) ............................. ..............33 DistrictCourthaslimitedpowertogran ttemporaryinjunctionsforaperiodnotexceedin g14daystoenableSupremeCourtproceedi ngstobecommenced:s141Distric t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inj urytotheotherpartyifinjuctionweregranted:Beech amvBristol(1968)................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..34 PFcasemeansthatapplicationcanshowasufficientlikelihoodofsuccesstojustifythecircumstances,ratherthanapplicationmustshowitismoreprobablythannotthat,attrial,theywill succeed:ACBvO’Neill(2006)...... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........34 Partiesseekinginjunctionsareusuallyrequiredtogiveanund ertakingastodamages:r25.8UCPR................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..34 However,thecourtcannotcompeltheg ivingofanundertaking,butitmayrefuseapplicatio nforinterlocutoryreliefunlessundertakingisoffered:TuckervNewBrunswick(1 890)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subjec t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Sterlin g(1987)............................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................34 Forlowercourts,thispowercomesfromthecou rt’sinherentequitablejurisdiction:JacksonvSterlin g(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suin gtheotherparty ?...................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Limitationp eriods...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 Purposeofimposinglimitationperiods......................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................35

5

Fourbroadrationalesforlimitationperiods:BrisbaneSo uthRegionalHealthvTaylor(1996) perHcMughJ.................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................35 Limitationsaresubstantivelaw:JohnPfeiffervRogerson(2000 ).................................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..........................36 Limitationperiods:LimitationAct196 9(NSW)............................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..36 Limitationperiodcanbesuspendedorpostpo ned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m ajorityattained:s52LimitationAct1969 ................................................................. ................................... ................................... ..............36 However,limitationperiodsforpersonalinjurymattersmayno talwaysbesuspended.................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............36 HowtodeterminewhenCOAaccrues................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............37

Whatistheappro priatejurisdicti on?.............................................................................................................................................................................................................37  Determiningjurisdiction. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................37 Servicedefinesjurisdiction.................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................37 Jurisdictionhasimpactonhowacaseistreated ................................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................37 Considerwhattheclientwants.............................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ..37 Typesofjurisdiction........................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................38 Original.......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................38 Federal–allmattersarisingundertheConstitutiono rinvolvingitsinterpretation.............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........38 SupremeCourt–anythingwhichma ybenecessarytodojustice......................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........38 Appellate................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..38 HighCourt–appealsfromanyjudgemen ts,degrees,ordersandsentencesofanyfederalcourt,anycourtexercisingfederaljurisdic tionorSupremeCourtofanystate...........................................38 FederalandStateCourts–appellatepowersgovernedbyleg islation....................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................38 StateCourts–jurisdictionallimit............. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................38 LocalCourt–Civil($100kforgenerald ivand$10kforsmallclaims)underPt3andCrimin alunderPt4:LocalCourtsAct2007( NSW)........................................................ ................................... ..38 DistrictCourt–Civil($750k)un derPt3andCriminalunderPt4:DistrictCourtAc t1973(NSW)......................................................... .................................... .................................... .........................38 SupremeCourt–CivilandCriminal(un limited):SupremeCourtAct1970 (NSW)................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..38 Inherent.................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................38 Supremecourt–allpowersnecessarytoenableittoacteffectively,toco ntrolitsownproceedingsandpreventabuseofproc ess.............................. .................................... ................................... ..38 Cross-vesting:JurisdictionofCourts(Cro ss-vesting)Act1987(Cthandallstates) ............................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................38 UndertheCross-vestingActs,provisionswhichconferFederaljurisdictiononStatecourtsarevalid,butitisunconstitutionaltoconferStatejurisdictiononFederalCourts:ReWakim;Exparte McNally(1999).................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........38 Assuch,thecross-vestingschemeonlyprovidesfor:.................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..39 ConferraloffederaljurisdictiononStatecourts:s4,Cth Act.......................................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............39 Cross-vestingofStatejurisdictionamong stStatecourts:e.g.s4,NSWAct...................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................39 Transferofproceedingsbetweencourtsparticipating inthescheme:s5,NSWAct................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................39 P’schoiceoftribunalandthereasonsforitarenottobetakeninto accountindeterminingwhetherthep roceedingsshouldbetransferredtoanothercourt:BHPBil litonvSchultz(2004).. ..............39

ORIGINATINGPROCEEDINGS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 Service.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 Servicedefinesjurisdiction:LaurievCarroll(1958 ).............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................39 Anaffidavitofservicesatisfiesthecourtthatadocumenthasbeenproperlyserved:r31.2UC PR................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................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kn owsadocumentisbeingofferedandtheydono t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

6

Further,Dcannotbefraudulentlyinduc ed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compan y’sregisteredoffice:s109X(1)(a)CA................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..40 ByUCPR,originatingprocessmustbeservedoneachD :r6.2(3)UCPR.................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................41 Anyoriginatingprocessinproceedingsinth eSCmustbeservedpersonally:r10.20(2)(a) UCPR................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................41 Effectservicebyservingonaheadofficeroronasimilarofficerofthecorporation(UCPR,r10.22),or,iftheydon’taccept,leaveitasnearaspracticabletothatotherpersonandtellingthe personthenatureofthedocument(UCPR,r10 .21).................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ...............................41 Leavingacopyofdocument................................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ...............................41 Thereisnoneedtodescribedocument oractuallyhandtoD–itisenoughthatDkn owsadocumentisbeingofferedandtheydono t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induc edintothejursidctionforthepurposeofservice:BaldryvJackso n........................................ ................................... ................................... ....................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m aybeservedundertheServiceandExecutionofProcessAct:s9(9)SE PA............................... ................................... ........41 ByUCPR,anyoriginatingprocessinproceeding sintheSCmustbeservedpersonallyonaprincipalofficeroftheco mpany:r10.22UCPR......................................... ................................... ....................41 A“principalofficer”isdefinedunderr10.21UCPR...................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............41 ByServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Ct h),thereareseveralwaystoeffectservice........................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..42 Serviceofaprocess,orderordocumentonacompa nyistobeeffectedbyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theco mpany’sregisteredoffice(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9( 1))..42 Aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonacompanybydeliveringacopyofitpersonallytoadirectorofthecompanywhoresideswithinAustralia(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s 9(2))........................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............42 Ifaliquidator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(3)),officialmanager(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4))oradministrator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4A))ofa companyhasbeenappointed,aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonthecompanybyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theofficeoftheliquidator,officialmanageror administratorlodgedundertheCorpo rations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kn owsadocumentisbeingofferedandtheydon ot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induc edintothejursidctionforthepurposeofservice:BaldryvJackso n........................................ ................................... ................................... ....................43 Wherethreatofviolence................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................43 ByServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(C th),thereareseveralwaystoeffectservice........................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..43 Serviceofaprocess,orderordocumentonacompa nyistobeeffectedbyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theco mpany’sregisteredoffice(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9( 1))..43 Aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonacompanybydeliveringacopyofitpersonallytoadirectorofthecompanywhoresideswithinAustralia(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s 9(2))........................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............43 Ifaliquidator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(3)),officialmanager(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4))oradministrator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4A))ofa companyhasbeenappointed,aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonthecompanybyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theofficeoftheliquidator,officialmanageror administratorlodgedundertheCorpo rationsAct.......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................43 Anaffidavitofservicesatisfiesthecourtthatadocumenthasbeenproperlyserved:s11SEPA.............................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..43

7

ServiceonDwhoisoverseas......................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................43 Theyneednotbepersonallyservedaslongasitisservedonthepersoninacco rdancewiththelawofthecountryinwhic hserviceiseffected:r11.6UCPR......................................... .........................44 Further,ifDdoesnotenteranappearance,Pmaynotproc eedagainstDwithoutleaveofSC:r11.4( 1).......................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..44 Ingrantingleave,courtmustregard4factors:Bulld ogsvWilliams(2008)................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ..44 Obtainingorderforsubstitutedservice................................................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................44 Pmustsatisfycourtthatdocumentseithercannotpracticablybeservedonperson(r10.14(1)(a)UCPR)orcannotpracticablybeservedonthepersoninthemannerprovidedbylaw(r10.14(1)(b) UCPR)............................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................44 Ifsatisfied,Pmustshowevidenceofsearchesandinquiriestofindthepersonandthatproposedmethodofsubstitutedserviceislikelytobringnoticetoparty’sattention: SyndicateMortgage SolutionsPtyLtdvKhaledEl-Sayed(2009) .................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................44 Examplesofattempts............................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................44 Objectiontoservice............................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........44 Seekingordertosetasideoriginatingprocess:r12. 11(a)UCPR............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........44 Anordersettingasidetheserviceoftheoriginatingprocessonthedefendant( UCPR,r12.11(1)(b) ).............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................45 Anorderdeclaringthattheoriginatingprocesshasnotbeendulyservedonthedefendant( UCPR,r12.11(1)(c) ).................................. ................................... .................................... ...............................45

StatementofC laimorSummons? ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................45 Summonsareusedwherequestionsoflawareindisput e:r6.4UCPR............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..45 Forms............................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................46 Represented:.................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... .........................46 Unrepresented:........................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................46 StatementofClaimsareusedwhereissuesoffactareindispute:r6.3UC PR.................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................46 Informationneededonoriginating process.............................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........46

Pleadings:Pt1 4UCPR.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................47  Form:.............................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................47 Pleadingstobedividedintoparagraphs14. 6.......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........47 Pleadingstocontainfacts,notevidence14 .7................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................47 Apartyneednotpleadafactiffactispresumedbylawtobetrue(UCPR,r14 .10(a))andburdenofdisproving thefactliesontheoppositeparty(UCPR,r14.10 (b)).................................. ..............47 Facts,notallegations,mustbepleaded:Gun nsvMarr............................................................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................47 Pleadingstobebrief-14.8.................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................47 Contents............................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................47 Wheretherearereferencesinpleadingstodocumentsan dconversations,theyshoulddescribetheeffectofthedocumen torconversation:r14.9.............................. ................................... ..............47 Pleadingsmustnotclaimforanunliquidat edamount:r14.13(1)... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................47 ExceptiontothisistheclaimisintheLocalCourtinregardstorepairtowingorcostofhiringamotorvehicleisaconsequenceofdamagedallegedasaresultofnegligencebyDorD’sagentor servant:r14.13(2).......................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..........................47 Mattermustbespecificallypleadedbyplaintiffordefendantifitwou ldtaketheotherpartybysurprise:r14.14................................. ................................... .................................... ...............................47 Materialfactsarenotstatementofmaterialfactsalone–“material”meansmaterialto theclaim,thatis,tothecause/sofactionwhich arereliedupon:KirbyvSanderson(2002) .......................47 ApleadingmustdiscloseareasonableCOAandthefactsthatsupportitinordertoassistDtothecasetheyhavetomeet–thepleadingisnotsufficientifnoCOAcanbededucedfromitwhenthe statementstandsalone:CharlieCartervAlliedEmployees’Associatio n(WA)(1987)................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..48 Particularsmustalsobeprovided:r15.1UCPR................................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................48 Theparticularstobegivenmustbesetoutinthepleadingor,ifthatisinconvenient,mustbesetoutinaseparatedocumentreferredtointhepleadingandfiledwiththepleading(UCPR,r 15.9)................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............48 PleadingsmustalsobeintelligibleandstatethefactsonwhichPreliesfortheexistencefortheirCOA.Incoherentstatementsofclaimshouldnotbeallowed:MarkisicvDeptofCommunity ServicesofNSW(2006).............................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................48 Ifpleadingsarenotclear,provideproceduralfairness,etc,andare,instead,intelligible,ambiguous,vagueorjusttoogeneralsoastoembarrasstheoppositepartywhodoesnotknowwhatis allegedagainsthim,thecourtmayorderplead ingbestruckout:PriestvNSW.................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..48

8

Thismustbesupportedbyparticulars,eithersetoutinthepleadingor,ifthatisinconvenient,setoutinaseparatedocumentreferredtointhepleadingandfiledwiththepleading:r15.9 UCPR.......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................48 Aparty’spleadingsmustbeverifiedbyaffidavit( UCPR,r14.23(2) )................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................48 Exceptionstoverificationbyaffidavitwherethereisarecoveryofpagesforthefollowing ............................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................48 Amendmentofpleadings.................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................49 Defendantmustpleadcontributoryneg ligence:r14.16......................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........49 Pleadingsmustbeconsistentbutmatterscanbep leaded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com mencedasfromdateoffilingandwillbecont inuedaccordingly:GreenwoodvPapadem etri(2007).................................... ................................... ........49 Considerliquidatedvsunliquidatedclaims............................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........49 WhereunliquidatedclaimsinDistrictC ourt,PNDC(Civil)1requiresaddition alrequirements:....................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................49 P’spreparationfortrialmustbewelladvancedbeforefilingSOC:para2. 1............................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................49 OnservingSOC,PmustalsoserveonD:............................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........49 Proposedconsentordersforpreparationofcase:para3.1........................................................ .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............49 Notificationofthedateandtimeofthepre-trialconferencew hichwillbeprovidedonfilingoftheSOC:para5 .1................................... ................................... ................................... ....................49 Anyparticularsoftheclaimthatarerequiredshouldhavebeenrequestedan dsuppliedbytimeofpre-trialconference:para3.3....................................................... ................................... ..............49

Defence...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................50 IfDdoesnotrespondorspecificallydenyeachfactualalleg ationintheSOC,thosefactsaredeemedtobeadm itted: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o fwithdrawalstatingtheextentofthewithdrawal(r1 2.6(3)UCPR)............... ................................... ....................50 Wherewithdrawalisbyconsent,noticeofwit hdrawalmustbeaccompaniedbyanoti ceofconsentbyallrelevantparties:r12.6(4)UCPR............................................. ................................... ..............50 ItisinthedefencethatDcounterclaimsandrequestsfurth er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d isclosing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UC PR............................... .................................... ...................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),bu titisnottothespecificityofr15.12.............................................................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................50 Thecourtcanmakeanorderforparticularstobefiled:r15.1 0(1)(a)UCPR................................................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................50

Reply:r14.4 UCPR..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Itispresumedthat,wherethereisnoreplytodefencebyP,thereisadenialofeveryallegationo ffactmadeinthepleading:r14.27(2) and(5)UCPR................................................. ...............................51 InproceedingsintheSupremeCourto rtheDistrictCourt,aplaintiffmayfileareplytoadefence:subs1............................................................. .................................... ................................... ....................51 InproceedingsintheLocalCourt,ap laintiffmayfileareplytoadefenceonlybyleaveoftheCourt:subs2................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........51 Thetimelimitedfortheplaintifftofileareplyis14daysafterserviceofthedefenceontheplain tiff:subs3................................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................51

Counterclaims andsetoffs.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................51 Setoffsarewhereonepartycanapplyadebt(liquidatedcla im)owedtohimbyanotherpartytodisch argeallorpartyofadebtheowesthatparty.............................................................. ....................51 DhasarighttosetoffiftherearemutualdebtsbetweenPandD aswayofdefence:CPAs21........................................................ ................................... ................................... .................................... ..51 s21CPAdoesnotapplytounliquidatedcla imsandisrestrictedtomutualdebts:IntegralHomeLo ansvInterstar(No2)(2007)..... ................................... .................................... ...............................51 Counterclaimsisaproceduraldevicewhereaction sbyonepartyagainsttheotherandviceversaareheardpartofoneproceedin g:s22CPA................................ .................................... .........................51 Thisisaproceduraldeviceonlyandnotasubstantiverig ht–anysubstantiverighttoclaimcontribution existsindependently:DillinghamvSteelMains(19 75)............................. ................................51

9

CounterclaimsagainstPdonothavetorelatedorconnectedtoP’sclaimorariseoutofthesametransaction–itismerelyrequiredtobewithinthesamepartiestotheoriginalclaimandbea matterwherecourthasjurisdiction:s22(1) CPA...................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..51 However,Dcanbringacounterclaimag ainstapersonwhoisnotapartytotheproceeding s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tim e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th e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rega rdstoallclaim sforrelieforallc laimsforrelievein respecttoapart icularDbyfiling anoticeofdiscon tinuance:r12 .1(1)UCPR...............................52 However,thisrequiresconsentofeachactiveparty(subsa),andw ithleaveofthecourt(subsb)......... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............52 Noticeofdiscontinuancemusthaveacertificatebysolic itorsayingthatPisonlydiscontinuingforthemselvesandfornoo ne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cou rt: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o utlinedinr12.1UCPR................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........52

Dismissalofproceedingsforlackofprogress:Pt12Div3..............................................................................................................................................................................53 Dismissalduetowantofduedespatch:IfPdoesnotprosecute(subs1)orDconductdefence(subs2)withduedespatch,courtmayorderproceedingsbedismissed,defencesmaybestruckoutinpart orinfull,oranyotherorderthecourtseesfit:r12.7UCPR..... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........53 ss56-60CPAarerelevantconsiderationsinthecourt’sdeci siontodoso............................................................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................53 IntheSupremeCourt,ifnoactionhasbeenm adein5months,courtmaydismissproceeding s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do ne:r12.8(4)UCPR................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................53 IntheDistrictorLocalCourt,ifnodefenceorcross-claimhasbeenfiled,anapplicationfordefaultjudgementhasnotbeenfiledandproceedingsnototherwisedisposedofin9months,courtmay dismissproceedingsofitsownmotion:r12 .9(2)UCPR................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..53 Nonoticeisneeded:r12.9(3)UCPR................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... .........................53

DEFECTIVEPLEADINGS ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53 Summaryjudgment ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................53 PcanapplyforsummaryjudgementagainstDwhohasfiledadefencethatdoesnotrevealavaliddefencetoP’sclaim,orwhoseonlydefenceisinregardtotheamountofdamagesclaimed:r13.1 UCPR............................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................53 DcanapplyforsummaryjudgementagainstPwhohasfiledastatementofclaimorsummonsthatisfrivolous,vexatious,wherenoreasonableCOA,ortheproceedingsareanabuseofprocess:r13.4 UCPR............................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................53 Frivolousproceedings................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............53 Vexatiousproceedings............................ ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..54 Abuseofprocess........................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................54 Summaryjudgementsaretobe“sparinglyem ployed”:GeneralSteelvCommissionerforRailways(1964 )..................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........54 Acasemustbeverycleartojustifythesummaryinterventionofthecourttopreventapartyfromsubmittinghiscasefordeterminationbythecourt:DeyvVictorianRailwaysCommissioners(1948) perDixonJ................................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................54

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

CONCLUDINGPROCEEDINGSBEFORETRIAL ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 10

Defaultjudgment............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................54 PcanapplyforadefaultjudgementifDdoesnotfilean appearanceoradefencewithintherequiredtime:r16.3UC PR............................... .................................... .................................... .........................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j ustbeaccompaniedby:...................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............54 Affidavitsinsupportofrequirements:r16.6UCPR(inregardstoliqu idated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UC PR),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,jud gmentisenteredandtheplaintiffcantakestepstoenforcethejud gment.................................... ................................... ....................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wh ichPisentitled:r16.7UCPR.................................55 Neitherserviceoftheapplicationfordefaultjudgemen t,orthepresenceofDisneeded:r16.4(1A)UCPR............................................ ................................... ................................... ................................55 Dcanapplytothecourttoexerciseit’sdiscretiontorulethatadefaultjudgementbesetaside:r36.16(2)(a)UCPR .................................. ................................... .................................... ...............................55 Dmustexplainthedelayinfilingadefenceandsatisfythecourtthatthereisameritabledefence:BorowiakvHobbs(2006).Dmustalsoprovethatthereisnoprejudicetotheothersidetobelet backin......................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............55

COSTS...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................56 Costsfollowt heevent:r42.1 UCPR................................................................................................................................................................................................................56 Thisprincipleissubjecttothecourtma kingsomeotherorderitseesfit(r42.1UCPR)–thisinclu descostsordersontheordinaryorindemnitybasis(s98C PA).................................. ...............................56 Indemnitycostsshouldbepaidotherthanth sethatappeartohavebeenunreasonablyincurredorappeartobeo fanunreasonableamount:r42.5(b) UCPR....................................................... ........56 Andthisprincipleissubjecttotheoverridingpu rposeins56CPA.............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........56 s60CPAprovidesthattheuseofthisdiscretionisguidedbypro portionalityprinciples:see:ZanellavMadden(200 7)perYoungJ........... ................................... ................................... ..........................56 Seealso:VellavANZ(2011)................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................56 Alsobearinmindthatcostsmadefollowing interlocutorydecisionsarepayableontheconclu sionofproceedingsunlessthecourtotherwiseord ers:r42.7UCPR............................. ................................56

Costassessmentsarerar elymade,butw henmade,aredone sounders353L PA........................................................................................................................................56 ExceptiontothecostsfollowtheeventruleareBullockandSandersonorders.............................................................................................................................................56 ThisisasituationwherethereisonePandtwoD’s(D 1andD2)–PwinsagainstD2,Plosesagain stD1............................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..57 BullockorderiswherePpaysD1,butPcanrecovercostsfromD2 .............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..57 SandersonorderiswhereD2paysPdirectlyandpaysD1directly.. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................57 BullockandSandersonordersmaybemadewhereitwas( i)reasonableforPtoproceedagainstD1,and( ii)theconductofD2drewD1 intolitigation..................................... ................................... ........57

Costordersagainst lawyers............................................................................................................................................................................................................................57  Lawyershaveadutytoassistthecourtstoachievetheoverridingpurpose:s56( 4)CPA................................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................57 Anyfailuretodosocangiveacostsorderunders99CPA,whic happliestoseriousneglect,misconducto rincompetenceoflawyer:see:TreadwellvHickey........................................ .........................57 S348LPAachievesthesameaim.............................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............57

Securityforcost s.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................57  CourthaspowertoorderPtogivesecurityforD’scostofdefend ingP’sclaimandcanorderstayofproceedingsunt ilthisisdone:r42.21........................................................ ................................... ........57 Thisorderisdiscretionaryanddiscretionisunfettered,butitwilln otbemadeautomatically:BartonvMinisterforForeignAffairs(19 84)........................................ ................................... ....................57 Thecourtmaydosoif:.................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................58 PisnormallyaresidentoutsideNSW:subs1............ ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............58

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Buildi ngconstructionEmployeevCom monwealthTradingBank(19 76)............................ ................................... .................................... ................................... ..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dec eive:subs2................................ ................................... ..............58 Pchangesaddressafterproceedingshavecommenc edandPdidsotoavoidconsequencesofproceedin gs: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Mitch ell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o fD:subse................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..58 However,establishingoneofthesedoesnotnecessarilymeanth at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disc retion:WarrenMitchellP/LvAustralianMaritimeOfficersUnion(199 3)....................................................... ................................... ........58 Factstobeconsideredinthebalancingp rocessoffactorsinuseofdiscretion:IdoportvNAB(2001 ).......................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..58 Thatregardistobehadtothestrengthandbo nafidesoftheapplicant’scase.................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..59 Whethertheapplicant’simpecuniositywa scausedbytherespondent’sconductsubject oftheclaim.............................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ........59 Whethertherespondent’sapplicationforsecurit yisoppressive,inthesensethatitisbeingusedmerelytodenyanimpecuniou sapplicantarighttolitigate...................... ................................59 Whetherthereareanypersonsstandingbehindtheco mpany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co mpanyhaveofferedanypersonalundertakingtobeliableforthec osts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ha ltself-helpprocedures)andthusforcedtolitigate.......................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................59 Anyapplicationforsecurityforcostsshouldbemadeprom ptlyasitis“unfairtolullP”intopreparationoftheproceeding s:AvnervDimopoulos........................................ ................................... ........59 Non-compliancewithsecurityordersmayresultinthec ourtdismissingP’sproceedings:r42.21UCPRs..................................................... .................................... ................................... ..........................59

Offersofcompromise/Calderbankletters......................................................................................................................................................................................................59 Differences......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ...............................59 Offersofcompromise.................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..60 Makinganoffer......................................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................60 Anypartycanmakeanofferatanytime:r20.26UCPR......................... ................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................60 However,offermustbeexclusiveofcosts:subs2................................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................60 OffermuststateofferisinaccordancewithPt20oftherules:subs3.................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................60 PmaynotmakeanofferunlessDhasreceivedparticularsofP’sclaim:subs4............................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............60 IfPhasmadeanofferandDfeelstheydonothavesufficientinformation tomakeadecision,theycanaskforparticularswithin14daysofreceip tofoffer:subs5........................................60 Therearetimelimitstohowlongtheofferisopenforaccep tance:subs7................................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................60 Ifofferwasmadeatleast2monthsbeforetrialdate,closingd ateforacceptanceofoffermustnotbelessthan28days:subsa.............................. .................................... ...............................60 Ifofferwasmadelessthan2monthsbeforetrialdate,closing dateforacceptanceofofferiswhatisreasonableinthecircumstanc es:subsb...................................................... ....................60 Acceptingorrejectinganoffer............................................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................60 Offermustbeacceptedinwritingwithin28days(un lessotherwisestatedintheoffer)....................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................60 Tableofentitlementtocosts............. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..60 Ifacceptedandunlessotherwisespecifiedinthenoticeo foffer,allpaymentundertheoffermustbemadewithin28daysoftheoffer:r20.26( 8)UCPR.............................. ................................61 Calderbankletter....................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................61 Form.................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........61 MustmakeclearthatthisisaCalderbankletterbyeithersaying“thisisaCalderbankletter”or“withoutprejudiceexceptwithcosts”–thisallowsyoutogototakethelettertocourttoprove yourofferandbeabletoapplytoclaimforindemnitiesfromtheda yoftheoffer:CalderbankvCalderbank(1975)............................................................ ................................... ................................61 Offercanbeinclusiveorexclusiveofcosts......................................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........61 MakingaCalderbankoffer.................................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........61 D’soffermustbeagenuineofferthatallowsanappropriateop portunityfortheotherpartytoconsidertheoffer...................................... ................................... ................................... ....................61

12

ThecourtwilltakeintoabouttheOfferor’scircumstanc esinordertodeterminewhethertheofferwasgenuine:Maitland HospitalvFisher(No2)(1992).......................................................... ..61 NSWCAfoundthat$129.24d ifferencewasheldtoconstituteagenuineofferofcompromi se:ForbesMemorialClubvHodge(1995) .................................................. ................................... ........62 Generally,a“walk-away”offer(i.e.walkawayfromtheproceedingsan dget$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ag ainsthimmaybeheldunreasonable:Blagojevc hvAustralianIndustrialRelationsCommission(20 00)..........................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un relatedproceedingsmaybeconsideredreasonable:Bauld erstone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judgem ent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)p er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jud gement]and101[afterjudgemen t]CPA):ManlyCouncilvByrne(No2)( 2004).................................... ................................... ..63 Orders.............................. .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................63 Calderbankofferdoesnotautomaticallyresultintheco urtmakinganorderforindemnitycosts:SMECvCam pbelltown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applic ationofapartyorpersonwithsufficientinterest:r33.4................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................64 Conductmoneyasdefinedinr33.1UC PR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:Comm issionerofRailwaysvSmall(1938)perJordan CJ................................................................ .................................... ................................... ..64 Subpoenasmayonlybeusedforalegitimateforensicpu rposeandnotaspartofafishingexpedition–itisconsideredtob eanabuseofprocess:Small(1938)........................................................... ..64 rd Asubpoenaissentoutto3 parties–anoticetoproduceisforpartiestoproceeding s.......................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................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applic ationbytheparties.................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........65 21.12-containsalimitationonno ticestoproduceissuedforthepurposeofpersonalinju ryclaims.............................. .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................65 21.13–makesprovisionsinrelationtothecostsofcompliance................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..65

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

DISCOVERY .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................65 Rulesfordiscoverya reinPt21U CPR.............................................................................................................................................................................................................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docu ments:r21.2UCPR................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................66 Generaldiscoverydoesn’treallyexistanymore: CompagnieFinanciereetCommercialeduPacifiquevThePeruvianGuanoCo (1882)perBrettLJ,followedby MulleyvManifold (1959)at345per MenziesJ............................................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................66 Anexcludeddocumentisoneofthefollowin g(r21.1(1)UCPR)........................................ ................................... .................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..66 (a) anydocumentfiledintheproceedings,.................................. ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ................................66 (b) anydocumentservedonpartyAafterthecommencem entoftheproceedings,.......... ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..........................66 (d) anydocumentthatwhollycamein toexistenceafterthecommencementoftheproceed ings,................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ..............66 (c) anyadditionalcopyofadocumentin cludedinthelistofdocuments,beingad ocumentthatcontainsnomark,deletio n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o ftheproceedingsofwhichacopyisincludedin thelistofdocuments,.......66 butdoesnotincludeanydocumen tthatthecourtdeclaresnottobeanexcludeddo cumentforthepurposesofthoseproceedings.. ................................... .................................... ...............................66 Adocumentistakentobe“relevanttoafactinissue”ifitcouldratio nallyaffecttheassessmentofprobabilityoftheexistenceofthatfact:r21.1( 2)UCPR................................... ................................... ..66 Wherethecourtordersdiscoveryonaparty,thatparty’ssolicitormustprovideanaffidavitandcertificatesupportingalistofdocuments,swearingonthecompletenessofthelist:r21.4UCPR...........66 Lawyersmustnotgiveadvicetodestroydocumentsthatm ightberequiredinanticipatedlegalpro ceedings: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O fficevHarman(19 83)........................................................................................................................................................................................................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UC PR)where,ifyouservenoticetoadmitfactsandotherpartydoesno t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lea veofthecourt:r17.3(3)UCPR............................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............67

Interrogatoriescannotbemadewithoutspecialreasonsandmayonlybemadebyorderfromthecourt:r22.1UCPR..............................................................................67  “Specialreasons”arereasons“outoftheordinary,extraordinaryorexceptional”:O’MearavArianayagam (2006)perLathamJ............................... .................................... ................................... ..............67 Wheregrantedbythecourt,partiesmayobjec tonthebasisorrelevanceorvexatiousoroppressiveness:r22.2UCPR...................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ..67 Vexatiousnessandoppressivenessisgovernedbytheproportionalityprincip les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unnecessar yinterrogatories.......................................................................................................................................................................................................68 Relevantformsare Form21forinte rrogatoriesandFor2 2forstatement ofanswerstointer rogatories.....................................................................................................68 JUDGEMENT..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69

14

GENERALLY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Powerofthecour t:s90CPA ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 r36.1UCPRgivescourtapowertomakeajudg ement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proceeding stoanend................................ .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............69

Reasonsforjudgementsmustbegiven:r36.2UCPR.....................................................................................................................................................................................69 Canalsobegivenextempore–reasonsdonotneedto begivenorallyaslongaswrittenreasonsareprovidedafterthefact:r36.2( 1)UCPR........................................ ................................... ....................69

Thedatejudgementgoesintoeffectisthedateitwasgivenormade:r36.4(1)(a)UCPR............................................................................................................................69 Alternatively,itcanbethedateitisentered:r36.4(1)(b )UCPR.................................. .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........69

EFFECTOFJUDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Resjudicata ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................69 Concernedwiththeremedyorreliefgrantedinagi vensetofcircumstances:RogersvR(1994)............ ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ..............69 Essentially,theprincipleisthatanyjudicialdecision onanyissuebetween2partiesisconclusiveandcannotb ere-litigated...................................... .................................... ................................... ........69

Issueestoppel.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70 Concernedwiththedeterminationo fissues:RogersvR(1994)......................................................... .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... ....................70 Principleisthat,oncedecided,anissuecannotb eventilatedagainbetweenthesameparties(thismeanstha tpartieswillbeestoppedfrompleadingthesameC OAagain)................................. ........70

 Anshunestoppel.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70 Concernedwithaclaimsocloselycon nected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cann otberaisedinsubsequentproceedings................................................... ................................... ................................70

APPEALS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................70  Appealstosupervisoryj ursidction..................................................................................................................................................................................................................70  Appealstoquestionso flawonly....................................................................................................................................................................................................................70  Appealsaftertrial beforejudgeandjury........................................................................................................................................................................................................70  Appealsfromajudge– theremustbeaner roroflaw...................................................................................................................................................................................71 Rehearings......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................71 Apersonaggrievedbyanawardmayapplyforarehearing(s42( 1)CPA)andawardissuspendedfromtimeo fapplicationuntilorderforrehearingismade(s42( 3)CPA).............................. ....................71 Arehearingmustbeorderediftheapplicationwasmadebeforeawardtookeffect(s43(1)CPA)andtheamountclaimedinproceedingsexceedsthejurisdictionallimitoftheLCintheSmallClaims Division,i.e.$10k(s43(2)C PA)................................. ................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ....................71 Further:s43CPA............................................................. .................................... .................................... ................................... ................................... .................................... ................................... ........71

 Appealsofahearingde novo.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................71 Procedure–followPNSCCA1........................................................................................................................................................................................................................71 ENFORCEMENT .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................72  Judgementmust beenteredbeforeit canbeenforced:s1 33(1)CPA............................................................................................................................................................72 Aregistrarmustfurnishasealedcopyofanyjudgementororderto anyonewhoappliesforacopy:r36.12UCPR........................ ................................... .................................... ................................... ........72 TheexceptionisanyproceedingsundertheAdo ptionAct2000–thismayonlydeliveredtoPunlesscou rtordersotherwise:r36.12(3)UCPR........................................ ................................... ..............72

 Aninstalmentorde rcanbemadewher e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b y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judg ement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t hesecurityinterestunlessdirectedbythejudgementcredito r: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doesn’timpactonthedefinitionofthosesubstantiverights •

Procedurallawisnotlessimportantthansubstantivelaw:BathurstCJNSWSC “Inmanycaserulesofproceduremayinfactprovetobemoreimportantthansubstantivelawascivilprocedurerulesoperatetodictate; Themannerofdeterminationofthefactsinissue, Thelawtobeapplied, Thewayinwhichthelawisappliedtothefactsand Theavailableremedies.” • • • •

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

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

(cfSCRPart1,rule3) (1)TheoverridingpurposeofthisActandofrulesof court,intheirapplicationtocivilproceedings,istofacilitatethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesin theproceedings. (2)Thecourtmustseektogiveeffecttotheoverridingpurposewhenit exercisesanypowergiventoitbythisActorbyrulesof courtandwhenitinterpretsanyprovision ofthisActorofanysuchrule. (3)Apartytocivilproceedingsisunderadutytoassistthecourttofurthertheoverridingpurposeand,tothateffect,toparticipateintheprocessesofthe courtandto complywithdirectionsandordersofthe court. (4)Eachofthefollowingpersonsmustnot,bytheirconduct,causeapartyto civilproceedingstobeputinbreachofadutyidentifiedinsubsection(3): (a)anysolicitororbarristerrepresentingthepartyinthe proceedings, 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court’sacknowledgementoftherightsofthepartiestotheproceedings,butalso consideringtheinterestsofotherlitigantsandthepublic:AonvANU(2009). Factsofcase

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

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

s56CPArequiresalllitigantsincivilproceedingsinNSWSCtoactasmodellitigants:PriestvNSW(2007) Rulings: Thisallmustbeassessedinreferencetosomeformoftestofproportionality Thecosttothepartiesisproportionatetotheimportanceandcomplexityofthesubject-matterindispute:s60CPA Theconceptofproportionalityofcostsins60caninfluencethedemandsthatthecourtplacesonparties:e.g.ZanellavMadden(2007) PropertyregisteredinnameofPandDasjointtenants–Pwishestorealizetheland,buthasnotheardofDformanyyears–Phadpaidmajorityofthepurchasemoneyby payingoutmortgage–evidenceisthatDhasnotbeenseensince1980–DisoriginallyfromScotland–couldhaveorganizedadsinScotland,butwhenconsideringthatthe estateisonly$37,500,thecostofputtingsuchadsistoogreat–declareddeadbythecourt,assuch,Ptakesfullworthofproperty 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

P’smustnotcommenceproceedingsunlesstheyarereadytocomplywiththerules:DCPN1 •

ThismeansthatpreparationoftrialmustbewelladvancedbeforethefilingofaSOC

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

Courtpowersinregardstonon-compliancewithcasemanagementprinciples:s61CPA Courthaspowertomakeanydirectionitseesfitforspeedydeterminationofissuesbetweenparties:subs1 Directionsarethepowertodirectpartiesabouttheconductofthematter

Non-compliancemayresultinthecourtdismissingorstrikingoutproceedings,ormayenterjudgementorcostsorderas thecourtseesappropriate:subs3 Thisonlyoccurswhereitisabsolutelynecessary:see:McCabeforcriteria Thisislargelybecause,ifthejudgeusesthispowerunnecessarily,itwillbeconsideredanerroroflaw

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

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

PNsaresubjecttoUCPR

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

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

 Abuseofprocess  Allcourtshaveinherentpowersnecessarytoenableittoacteffectively,tocontrolitsownproceedingsandprevent abuseofprocess:JagovDistrictCourtofNSW(1989)(forSupremeCourt),JacksonvSterling(1987)(forlowercourts) Tostartproceedingswithnomeritwhatsoeverisanabuseofprocess:WhiteindustriesvFlower&Hart(1998) WIhadcontracttobuildshoppingcentre–pricediscrepancies–clienttoWIdecidedtheydidn’twanttopayanymoremoney–soughtadvicefromlawyers(F)toseehow theycangetaroundit–adviceofFwasthatcasewasarguableandratherweak–nevertheless,counselpreparedastatementofclaimarguingfraud(asaholdingstrategy tokeepWIatbay)andalsos52TPAformisleadinganddeceptiveconduct–Courtfoundabuseofprocessandnotedthatthereisanethicalobligationonpractitionersas well

Litigationfundingisnotanabuseofprocessorcontrarytopublicpolicy:Campbell’sCashandCarryvFostif(2006)per Gummow,HayneandCrennanJJ Existingdoctrinesofabuseofprocessandthecourts’abilitytoprotecttheirprocesseswouldbesufficienttodealwithafunderconductingthemselvesinamanner “inimicaltothedueadministrationofjustice” MasonPinCourtofAppealsaidthatthelawlooksfavourablyonfundingarrangementsthatofferaccesstojusticeaslongasanytendencytoabuseofprocessis controlled •

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

Noticeofaffidavitsmustbeservedtootherparties:s173EA PartyAwhotendersaffidavitsmustcallpersonwhomadeevidenceifPartyBrequests,butdoesn’thavetounless requested:r35.2UCPR Wheredeponenthasdied,hearsayrule(s59EA)doesnotapplyandaffidavitmaycontainhearsayevidence–obviousthisalso meansthatthepersonalsocannotbecalledforcrossexamination:ss63and67EvidenceAct

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

Ifalterationismadetoafiledaffidavit,itcannotbeusedunlesspersonwhosworeaffidavitinitialsallchanges:r35.5 UCPR However,bestpracticeistogetanewonere-sworniftheaffidavithasnotbeenfiledasyet,orre-submitanewoneandwithdraw theoldone

Ethicsaroundaffidavits–see:ethicsnotes 21

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 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. o

ProsandconsofADR Pros

Cons

Accesstojustice–e.g.justiceismoreaccessibletothose oflimitedfinancialmeans Faster–legalproceedingmaytakeyears,ADRmayonly takemonthsorweeks

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

Savestimeandmoney–forpartiesaswellascourtsand government Moreparticipation–morechancetotelltheirsideofthe storythanaswouldincourt.Partiesmayalsohave greatercontrolovertheoutcome Flexibility and creative solutions

Cooperative–thiscanhelppreserverelationships Less stress

Confidentiality Statisticallygoodresults–settlementratesarebetween

Disclosureofinformation–ADRmaynotbeeffectiveifit takesplacebeforethepartieshavesufficient informationaboutthestrengthsandweaknessesoftheir respectivecases Cost – if a dispute is resolved through ADR after proceedingshavecommenced,partiesmayhavetoput timeandmoneyintobothADRandcourthearing Delay–ADRaddsanextrastep,whichmightcausea delay Fairness – procedural rules that govern court proceedingsassafeguardsforfairnessarenot necessarilyincludedinADR Power imbalances – ADR doesn’t really work if one party isstrongerthantheother Delayingtactics–ADRissometimesusedasadelaying 22

50-85% More satisfying for parties

tactic before proceeding to litigation Inequality – like power imbalances, the capacity to bargaineffectivelyisdifficultwheretherearepower imbalances

Definitionalstage Ethicalconstraintsonlawyers Thereisanethicalrequirementonlawyerstobetimelyandefficientintheircontactoflitigation:rrA.15-A.15B,  AdvocacyRulesintheR evisedProcessionalConductandPracticeRules199  AdvocacyRulesintheRevisedProcessionalCon ductandPracticeRules1995 5 Seealsorr56-59,NSWBarristers’Rules

Theremustbereasonableprospectsofsuccess:s345LPA Certificateassertingthereasonableprospectsofsuccessmustb Certificateassertingthe reasonableprospectsofsuccessmustbesignedbysolicito esignedbysolicitor:s347LPA r:s347LPA Reasonableprospectsofsuccessisdefinedbytheb Reasonablepro spectsofsuccessisdefinedbythebasisofprovablefacts asisofprovablefactsandareasonabl andareasonablyarguableviewofthela yarguableviewofthelaw w ForP,theremustbeareasonableprospectofdamagesbeingrec ForP,theremustbeareasonab leprospectofdamagesbeingrecoveredontheclaim:s345(1)LPA overedontheclaim:s345(1)LPA ForD,theremustbeareasonableprospectofthedefencedefeatingtheclaimorleadingtoareductioninthedamag ForD,theremustbeareasonableprospectofthedefencedefeatingthecla imorleadingtoareductioninthedamagesrecoveredon esrecoveredon theclaim:s345(4)LPA

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

Mustfacilitateproceedingstobejust,quickandcheap:s56CPA Non-compliancemayresultincostsordersagainstlawyers:s99CPA 23

Commencingproceedings Step 1 2

What to do Inwriting,in Inwriting,informPo formPofther ftherequireme equirementsund ntsunderthe ertheDistrict DistrictCourtP CourtPractice racticeNote1 Note1(DCPN (DCPN1)bef 1)beforecom orecommencing mencingproceed proceedingsor ingsorfiling filing adispute Comm Commen ence cep pro roce ceed edin ings gsb by yei eith ther er: : StatementofClaim(SOC):mustcomplywithrr6.2,6.12,6.13UCPR MustincludecertificatesignedbyPSthatP’scasehasreasonableprospectsofsuccess:s.347LPA o

Who? PS

Servic Serviceo eon nD– D–mu must stse serve rvet the hefo follo llowin wing gdo docu cume ment nts: s: SOC:r.15.12(3)UCPR Documentaryevidence:r.15.12(2)UCPR Timetableforfutureconduct:cl.3.1DCPN1 Thesedocumentsmustbeservedwithinonemonthfromdatefiled:r.6.2(4)(b)UCPR Defence Mustbefiledwithin28daysofserviceby: Noticeofappearance:r.6.9UCPR;or o Defence:r.14.3UCPR o MustalsoincludecertificatesignedbyDSthatD’scasehasreasonableprospectsofsuccess:s.347LPA Iffurtherparticularsrequired,requestbeforefilingadefence–instead,seekanorderbythecourttoextendthereturndatetobe after28days:r.14.3(1)UCPR

P/PS

P/PS

•

3

Thingst Thingstocon oconsid sid -Reasonablepro -Limitationperi  -SummonsorS -Jurisdiction/Cro -Interlocutoryp -AlternativeDis -Mediation -Subpoenas -Noticestoprod  -Casemanagem Legend:

• •

P=Plaintiff

•

4

D=Defendant D

CD=CrossDefen

•

PS=P’sSolicitor DS=D’sSolicitor

•

CDS=CD’ CDS=CD’ssol ssolicit icit

N.B.alsoconsiderlimitationsasadefence–hasPfiledoutsidethestatutorylimitationperiods?

5

IfDdo IfDdoesn esnot otfile filein intim time,P e,Pmay mayapp applyf lyfora oranor norder derfor forjud judgem gement ent:r. :r.13 13.1 .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

Cross Crosscl claim aim– –mu must stb bef efile iled dth thes esam amet etime imeas asd def efenc ence e MustalsoincludecertificatesignedbyDSthatD’scasehasreasonableprospectsofsuccess:s.347LPA Also,Dmustserveallcopiesofpleadingsfiledtodate:r.9.7

D

Defence Defenceto tocro crossc ssclaim laim–o –opera perates testh thesa esamew mewaya ayasSt sStep ep4: 4:rr. rr.9.4 9.4an and9. d9.5U 5UCPR CPR MustalsoincludecertificatesignedbyCDSthatCD’scasehasreasonableprospectsofsuccess:s.347LPA Subp Subpoe oena nas s– –mu must stf fil ile etto3 o3rd parties as soon as possible: cl. 6.1 DC PN 1

CD

•

6

• •

7

•

8

A ll

Thingst Thingstocon oconsid sid -Interlocutoryp -Crossvesting -Particulars -Judgementbef  means“showca -Discovery -Subpoenas -Noticestoprod  -Affidavits -Casemanagem 24

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

 A“personunderlegalincapacity”  A“personunderlegalincapacit y”  Apersonunderalegalincapacitymaynotcommenc  Apersonunderalegali ncapacitymaynotcommenceorcarryonproceedi eorcarryonproceedingsexceptbyhiso ngsexceptbyhisorhertutor:r7.14(1)UCPR rhertutor:r7.14(1)UCPR Further,unlessthecourtordersotherwise,thetutorofapersonunderlegalincap Further,unlessthecourtordersotherwise,thetutorofaperson underlegalincapacitymaynotcom acitymaynotcommenceorcarryon menceorcarryon proceedingsexceptbyasolicitor:r7.14(2)UCPR AnythingthattheUCPRauthorisesorrequiresapartytodoinrelationtotheconductofproceedingsmay,ifthepartyisapersonunderlegalincapacity,bedoneonhisor herbehalfbyhisorhertutor:r7.15(6)UCPR

“Personunderlegalincapacity”defined Apersonwillbeconsidereda“ personunderalegal incapacity ”iftheyare: a) Achildundertheageof18years( CivilProcedureAct,s3(1)(a) ) b) Aninvoluntarypatientoraforensicpatient( CivilProcedureAct,s3(1)(b) ) c) Apersonunderguardianship( CivilProcedureAct,s3(1)(c) ) d) AprotectedpersonwithinthemeaningoftheProtectedEstatesAct1893( CivilProcedureAct,s3(1)(d) ) e) Anincommunicateperson,beingapersonwhohassuchaphysicalormentaldisabilitythatheorsheisunabletoreceivecommunications,orexpresshisorherwill, withrespecttohisorherpropertyoraffairs( CivilProcedureAct,s3(1)(e) )

 Anyperson(otherthanacorporation)iseligibletobethetut  Anyperson(otherthanacorporation) iseligibletobethetutorofapersonunderlegalin orofapersonunderlegalincapacityothertha capacityotherthanapersonunder napersonunder legalincapacity(UCPR,r7.15(2 legalincapa city(UCPR,r7.15(2)(a)),ajudicialoff )(a)),ajudicialofficerorregistrar(UCPR,r7.15( icerorregistrar(UCPR,r7.15(2)(b)),orapersonwh 2)(b)),orapersonwhohasinterestinthe ohasinterestinthe proceedings(UCPR,r7.15(2)(c)) Apersonmaybecomethetutorofapersonwithouttheneedforanyformalinstrumentofappointmentoranyorderofacourt( UCPR,r7.15(1)). However,apersonmaynotreplaceanotherpersonastutorexceptbyorderofthecourt( UCPR,r7.15(5)). •

Documentsrequiredtovalidlyappointatutor a) Thetutor’sconsenttoactastutor( UCPR,r7.16(a)).Thisdocumentmustbedulyexecutedandauthenticated( UCPR,r31.15(1)(b)),meaningthatthedocument mustbesignedbytheconsentingpersonandthesignatureisverifiedbysomeotherperson( UCPR31.15(2)(a)) b) Acertificate,signedbythetutor’ssolicitorintheproceedings,totheeffectthatthetutordoesnothaveanyinterestintheproceedingsadversetotheinterestsof thepersonunderlegalincapacity( UCPR,r7.16(b))

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

25

 Alsoconsider:  Arelegalentitiescorrect? • • •

Considercitizenship,companies(companyorcompanyname?),directors Undertakedetailedandcarefulinquiriestoensureyouhavetherightcompany,ownerorthepartyresponsibleforthepremises,etc GreenwoodvPapademetri(2007)–forwhatnottodo Inthiscase,Pdidnothavestanding,allpartieswerenotlegalentities,thecorrectDwasnotsuedandPdidnotpleadacauseofactionagainsteachnamed o D

Correctdefendant?EnsureyouaresuingthecorrectD •

Whocausedthebreach,butmaynotbeliable(e.g.principalandagentrelationship) Also,thestatecannotbesuedundertheACL o

Preliminarydiscovery–itmustoccurintheinitialprocess:Pt5UCPR • •

Preliminarydiscoverycannotbeusedoncethematterisonfoot Discoveryofdocuments(r5.2)canassistinobtainingtheidentityorwhereaboutsofapotentialD

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

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

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

26

 Applicationforpreliminarydiscovery Anapplicationforanorderrequiringapersontoprovideyouwithinformationordocumentsrelatingtotheidentityorwhereaboutsofaprospectivedefendantistobe made: a) Ifitismadeinrelationtoproceedingsinwhichtheapplicantisaparty,bynoticeofmotionintheproceedings( UCPR,r6.2(8)(a) ) b) Inanyothercase,bysummons( UCPR,r6.2(8)(b) )

 Anapplication mustbesupportedbya naffidavitstati ngfactsonwhic happlicantsreliesa ndspecifyinginf ormation,docu mentsorthingsi nrespectof whichorderissought:s6.2(7)(a)UCPR  ANOMmustalso beservedoneachperso neffectedbypropo sedorder:r18.2 UCPR

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

DiscoverytodeterminewhetherthereissufficientinformationtocommenceproceedingsagainstD Thisapplicationismadebysummons:r6.4(1)(c)UCPR Itmustbesupportedbyanaffidavitstatingthefactsandthekindsofdocumentsapplicantisseeking:r5.3(3)(a)UCPR

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

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

ThreesituationswheretheCourtmayorderdiscovery a) Theapplicantmaybeentitledtomakeaclaimforrelieffromthecourtagainstapersonbut,havingmadereasonableinquiries,isunabletoobtainsufficient informationtodecidewhetherornottocommenceproceedingsagainsttheprospectivedefendant( UCPR,r5.3(1)(a) ) b) Theprospectivedefendantmayhaveorhavehadpossessionofadocumentorthingthatcanassistindeterminingwhetherornottheapplicantisentitledtomake suchaclaimforrelief( UCPR,r5.3(1)(b) ) c) Inspectionofsuchadocumentwouldassisttheapplicanttomakethedecisionconcerned( UCPR,r5.3(1)(c) )

 Joiningproceedings:Pt6,UCPR IftherearemultipleD’s,ensurethereisacauseofactionagainstEACHdefendant PmustpleadaclearcauseofactionagainsteachDindividually 27

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

Typesofjoinders Keyisbasedontherelevanttransactionorthesameseriesoftransactions:PaynevYoung(1980) Meaningoftransactionisnotlimitedtoacontractualtransaction:BendirvAnson(1936) “Theword“transaction”,Ithink,necessarilymeananact,theeffectofwhichextendsbeyondtheagenttootherpersons”

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

ThiswasallreinedinwithPaynevYoung

Joiningofparties:rr6.19-6.28 Courtpowerstoremovejoinder Wherepartiesareimproperlyorunneceesarilyjoined,orwherejoinderisnolongernecessaryorproper,courtcanremovetheoffending party:r6.29UCPR Whereajoinderofanykindisembarrassing,inconvenientorcausesdelayintheproceedings,thecourtcanseparateandorderseparate trialsasthecourtseesfit(r6.22(a)UCPR)ormakeanotherorderthecourtseesfit(r6.22(a)UCPR) •

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

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

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) •

Consentmustbegivenbeforeapartyisjoined:r6.25UCPR •

Wheredifferentpeoplearejointlyentitledtothesamerelief,allshouldbejoinedatPs:r6.20(2)(a)UCPR o However,whereoneofthoseisnotpreparedtoconsenttobejoinedasP,thatpartycanbejoinedataD:r6.20(2)(b)UCPR

 JoiningDs  AnapplicationforjoinderofPsrequiresSOCorsummons(rr6.3or6.4UCPR),dependingoncircumstancesofthecase–thisalsorequiresa noticeofmotion(r18.2UCPR)andaffidavit(r31.2UCPR) Criteria  Joindermustariseoutofthesametransactionorthesameseriesoftransactions:PaynevYoung(1980),r6.19(1)(b)UCPR PsoughttorelyonjoinderofallabattoirownerscontestingvalidityoffeesimposedbyWAGovt–feeswerefoundbyCourttobecalculatedaccordingtodifferentsales anddifferingamountsofpaymentsthatweremadetodifferentDs–courtfoundthatthetransactionsweresimilar,butwerenotthesameseriesoftransactionsThetrials, ifseparated,wouldresultincommonquestionsoflawandfact

Evenwheretheseconditionsarenotfulfilled,thecourthasdiscretiontograntleaveforDstojoininthesameproceedings:r6.19UCPR •

Thiscanoccurbeforeorafterproceedingshavecommenced:r6.19(2)UCPR

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) •

Consentmustbegivenbeforeapartyisjoined:r6.25UCPR •

Wheredifferentpeoplearejointlyentitledtothesamerelief,allshouldbejoinedatPs:r6.20(2)(a)UCPR 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 o

 AlljointlyliableDsmustbesuedinthesameproceedingsandthecourtcanorderproceedingsbestayeduntilalljointDsareparties:r 6.21(2)UCPR EvenwherePisnottoosurewhichpartyisliabletohim,Dscanbejoinedinthesameproceedings.IfthecourtthinksitsreasonablethatPjoined successfulDbecauseoftheaccusationofunsuccessfulD,BullockandSandersonordersmaybeappropriate

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

Retrospectivejoinders:rr6.19(2)and6.24UCPR Leavecanbegrantedforpartiestojoinotherpartiesafterproceedingshavecommenced:r6.19(2) Thecourtmayorderpartiestobejoinedtoproceedingsiftheyfeelthepartyoughttobejoined,orit’sjoinderisnecessarytothe determinationoftheproceedings:r6.24 Thisincludesnon-partywhoisinpossessionofwholeorpartoflandthatisindisputeintheproceedingsmaybeaddedasaD:r6.24(2)

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

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

30

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

Causesofactioncanbejoinedaslongasoneofthefollowingissatisfied: CapacityofPandDarewithinoneofr6.18(1)(a)-(c)UCPR (a) iftheplaintiffsuesinthesamecapacity,andclaimsthedefendanttobeliableinthesamecapacity,inrespectofeachcauseofaction, (b) iftheplaintiffsues: i. inhisorhercapacityasexecutorofthewillofadeceasedperson,oradministratoroftheestateofadeceasedperson,inrespectofoneormoreofthe causesofaction,and ii. inhisorherpersonalcapacity,butwithreferencetotheestateofthesamedeceasedperson,inrespectoftheremainingcausesofaction, (c) iftheplaintiffclaimsthedefendanttobeliable: i. inhisorhercapacityasexecutorofthewillofadeceasedperson,oradministratoroftheestateofadeceasedperson,inrespectofoneormoreofthe causesofaction,and ii. inhisorherpersonalcapacity,andinrelationtotheestateofthesamedeceasedperson,inrespectoftheremainingcausesofaction,

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

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

Class/Representativeactions:Pt10CPA • •

EnablesclaimsofanumberofpersonsagainstthesameDtobedeterminedinonesuit Psarequasi-separate–onenameleads

Essentialrequirements: 1. 7ormorepersonshaveclaimsagainstthesameperson:s157(1)(a)CPA Apersonisconsideredtohavesufficientinterest(i.e.standing)tocommencerepresentativeproceedingsagainstanotherpersononbehalfofotherpersons o iftheyhavestandingtocommenceproceedingsontheperson’sownbehalfagainstthatotherperson:s158(1)CPA 2. Claimsariseoutofthesameorverysimilarcircumstances:s157(1)(b)CPA 3. Claimsgiverisetosubstantialcommonquestionsoflaworfact:s157(1)(c)CPA

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

31

 ApplicationsmustfollowformasoutlinedinPNSCGen17 Noticerequirementsalsoapply:ss175-176CPA Noticesmustbeaccurateandnotmisleadgroupmembers:CourtneyvMedtel(2001) “…Anyopt-outnoticeshouldbeframedasnottocauseunnecessaryalarmordistresstointendedrecipients…noticesmustbeaccuratebutshouldbedraftedwith sensitivity”

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

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

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

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

Interlocutoryapplicationsaredonebyfilinganoticeofmotion:Pt18UCPR Noticemustbefiledoneachpartyandbeaccompaniedwithanaffidavit:r18.1UCPR GenerallyNOMmustbefiled(r18.2(1)UCPR),butdoesnotneedtointhefollowingsituations(r18.2(2)UCPR) (a) thatpersonconsentstothemakingoftheorder,or 32

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

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

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

WhereNOMhasbeencorrectlyserved,mattermaybedealtwithineitherparty’sabsence:r18.7UCPR Directionsastoaresultofaninterlocutoryhearingismadeunderr18.9UCPR N.B.inregardstohearsayevidence,contrarytos59EvidenceAct,hearsayevidenceisallowedininterlocutory  proceedings:s75EvidenceAct

Interimpreservationorders–maybeusedbeforeorafteractioniscommenced Injunctiverelief:r25.2(1)(c)UCPR Todoso,applicantmustshowa“PFcase”andthat“balanceofconvenience”favourstheorderbeingmade:ApplevSamsung (2011) However,thiscasewasappealedandtheinjunctionwasdischarged

FederalCourthaspowertomakesuchinjunctionsasthecourt“haspower,inrelationtomattersinwhichithasjurisdiction,to makeordersofsuchkinds…thattheCourtthinksappropriate”:s23FederalCourtAct1976(Cth) SupremeCourthaspowertodosoatanystageofproceedingswhereitisjustorconvenienttodosobyinherentjurisdictionand s66(4)SupremeCourtAct1970(NSW) 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O’Neill(2006) InterlocutoryinjunctiontopreventABCfromscreeningadocothatimpliesthatO’Neill,convictedchildmurderer,wasresponsibleforthedisappearanceoftheBeaumont children

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

Ordersforpreservationofproperty:r25.3UCPR Ordersfordisposalofperishableproperty:r25.4UCPR Ordersforinterimdistributionofpropertyorincomesurplustothesubjectmatterofproceedings:rr25.5-25.6UCPR Ordersforpaymentofsharesinafundbeforeallinterestedpartiesaredetermined:r25.7UCPR Freezingorders(Marevainjunctions):r25.11and25.14UCPRandJacksonvSterling(1987) AMarevainjunctionpreventsapartyfromdisposingofassetstofrustratetheenforcementofajudgement–PsuedDforbreachofs52TPAandappliedtoFCAfororder thatDpay$3milassecurity–courtfoundPhadgoodchanceofsuccessandorderedDtoprovidesecurity–Dappealed–HCAfoundthattheordershouldnothavebeen made,butrecognisedthecourt’spowertograntMarevainjunctions

Forlowercourts,thispowercomesfromthecourt’sinherentequitablejurisdiction:JacksonvSterling(1987) Forinherentpowerofthecourttopreventanabuseofitsownprocess ForSuperiorcourts,thegeneralgrantsofstatutorypowersprovidesuperiorcourtsthepowertomakeinterlocutoryorderswherejustorappropriate •

34

 AnapplicationshouldcomplywithPNSCGen14

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

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

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

 AnapplicationshouldcomplywithPNSCGen13

Doesyourclientunderstandthecostsandimplicationsofcommencingproceedings? • • •

i.e.formalconceptofcosts,cost/benefitperspectives,costsofcourt,lawyers,ifoneloses,ifwins Also,thephysical,social,environmentalcosts Also,costoftime Implicationsofcommencingproceedings–filingcosts,needmoneytoevenstartthematter,delays o

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

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

Fourbroadrationalesforlimitationperiods:BrisbaneSouthRegionalHealthvTaylor(1996)perHcMughJ 1) 2) 3) 4)

Astimegoesby,relevantevidenceislikelytobelost Itisoppressive,even“cruel”toDtoallowanactiontobebroughtlongaftercircumstanceswhichgaverisetoithavepassed Peopleshouldbeabletoarrangetheiraffairsandutilisetheirresourcesonthebasisthatclaimscannolongerbemadeagainstthem Publicinterestrequiresthatdisputesbesettledasquicklyaspossible 35

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

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

Limitationperiods:LimitationAct1969(NSW) Cause of action

Period

Contract Tort general Breachoftrustorrecoveryoftrustproperties COA founded on a deed Recovery of land Defamation Personalinjurybefore05/12/02 Pe rsonal i njury a fte r 05/12/02

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 y ea rs from date on w hich C OA i s discov er abl e 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)

Work injury Motor accident

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

HowtodeterminewhenCOAaccrues Generally,aCOAaccrueswhen: 1) Allthenecessaryfactsoccur,thatis,alltheelementstoaCOAexist Thisiseventifapartyisnotawareofalltheelements:see:WardleyvWA(1992) o 2) ThereisacompetentPwhocansueandacompetentDwhocanbesued:see:ThomsonvLordClanmorris(1900) If action is: Based on fraud Fromconsequencesofmistake WherePisunderadisability Basedonbreachofcontract Based in tort

COA accrues from: Date of discoverability: s 55 Limitation Act 1969 DatePfirstdiscoversmistake:s56LimitationAct1969 Datewheredisabilitynolongerexists,i.e.limitationperiodissuspendedforperiodduringwhichdisabilityexists: s52LimitationAct1969 Datecontractisbreached Date wrongful act is committed or loss or damage is suffered

Whatistheappropriatejurisdiction? Determiningjurisdiction Servicedefinesjurisdiction Generally,nostepcanbetakenagainstDuntiltheyhavebeenservedwithoriginatingprocess OnceDhasbeenserved,Courthasjurisdiction •

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

Considerwhattheclientwants • • • • • •

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

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

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HCA’srulinginNSWvCth(1990),thestateswererequiredtolegislatefortheformationof corporations.Asaresultofthis,thestateshadtovesttheFederalCourtwithstatejurisdictiontoallowCthtohaveeffectivejudicialcontrolovercorporationslaw–the courtfoundthatpowermaybeconferredontothefederalcourtonlybyconsistutionalright(ss75and76Constutition)andthatnootherpolitymayconferjurisdiction ontothecourts–thismeansthatthestatescannotconferontoFederalcourts 38

 Assuch,thecross-vestingschemeonlyprovidesfor: ConferraloffederaljurisdictiononStatecourts:s4,CthAct Cross-vestingofStatejurisdictionamongstStatecourts:e.g.s4,NSWAct Transferofproceedingsbetweencourtsparticipatinginthescheme:s5,NSWAct • •

Thistransferistothemostappropriatecourt Transferisonlypossibleifbothtransferringcourtandthecourttowhichitissoughttotransfertheproceedingshavejurisdiction

P’schoiceoftribunalandthereasonsforitarenottobetakenintoaccountindeterminingwhethertheproceedingsshouldbe transferredtoanothercourt:BHPBillitonvSchultz(2004). Inthiscase,relevantfactorstothechoiceofforumwere: Theplaceorplaceswherethepartiesand/orwitnessesresideorcarryonbusiness Thelocationofthesubjectmatterofthedispute Theimportanceoflocalknowledgetotheresolutionoftheissues Thelawgoverningtherelevanttransaction Theproceduresavailableinthedifferentcourts Thelikelyhearingdatesinthedifferentcourts Whetheritissoughttotransfertheproceedingstoaspecialisedcourt,forexample,theFamilyCourt:seeLambertvDean(1989) • • • • • • •

Originatingproceedings Service  Servicedefinesjurisdiction:LaurievCarroll(1958) Generally,nostepcanbetakenagainstDuntiltheyhavebeenservedwithoriginatingprocess OnceDhasbeenserved,Courthasjurisdiction •

 Anaffidavitofservicesatisfiesthecourtthatadocumenthasbeenproperlyserved:r31.2UCPR Theaffidavitmustclearlyidentifythedocumentfororiginatingproceedingsandmustcontainastatementastowhen,where,howandbywhomservicewaseffected Itmustalsohaveastatementconcerningtheserviceorsubjectmatterofproceedingsandastatementthatdeponentisover16years:r35.8UCPR Affidavitmustnotbefiled:r35.9UCPR • •

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person’spresenceandshouldtellthepersonthe natureofthedocument( UCPR,r10.21(1))

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

Ifrejectedanddisputingservice,Dhasonustoproveevidencethatdocumentwasrejectedandseverdidnotdescribe:ANZvRostkier Further,Dcannotbefraudulentlyinducedintothejurisdictionforthepurposeofservice:BaldryvJackson

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

Othermethodsofservice,subjecttorules a) Bymeansofpersonalservice( UCPR,r10.5(1)(a) ) b) Bypostingacopyofthedocument,addressedtotheperson: i. Totheperson’saddressforservice( UCPR,r10.5(1)(b)(i) ) ii. Ifthepersonisnotanactiveparty,totheperson’sbusinessorresidentialaddress( UCPR,r10.5(1)(b)(ii) ) c) Byleavingacopyofthedocument,addressedtotheperson: i. Attheperson’saddressforservice( UCPR,r10.5(1)(c)(i) ) ii. Ifthepersonisnotanactiveparty,attheperson’sbusinessorresidentialaddress( UCPR,r10.5(1)(c)(ii) )

 Serviceonacorporation ByCorporationsAct2001(Cth),serviceisbyleavingitorpostingittothecompany’sregisteredoffice:s109X(1)(a)CA •

Alternatively,itcanbedeliveredpersonallytothedirectorofthecompany:s109X(1)(b)CA

40

ByUCPR,originatingprocessmustbeservedoneachD:r6.2(3)UCPR  AnyoriginatingprocessinproceedingsintheSCmustbeservedpersonally:r10.20(2)(a)UCPR Effectservicebyservingonaheadofficeroronasimilarofficerofthecorporation(UCPR,r10.22),or,iftheydon’taccept,leaveitas nearaspracticabletothatotherpersonandtellingthepersonthenatureofthedocument(UCPR,r10.21) Leavingacopyofdocument Leavingacopyofdocumentwithperson or,ifthepersondoesnotacceptthecopy,byputtingthecopydownintheperson’spresenceandshouldtellthepersonthe natureofthedocument( UCPR,r10.21(1))

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

Ifrejectedanddisputingservice,Dhasonustoproveevidencethatdocumentwasrejectedandseverdidnotdescribe:ANZvRostkier Further,Dcannotbefraudulentlyinducedintothejursidctionforthepurposeofservice:BaldryvJackson

 Serviceonaninterstatecompany  AnoriginatingprocessforserviceinAustralia,butoutsideNSWmustbearastatementthateitherPintendstoproceedunderthe  ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Cth)orthattheplaintiffintendstoproceedundertheUCPR(UCPR,r10.3(3)).  ss109X(1)and(2)CAdonotapplytoaprocess,orderordocumentthatmaybeservedundertheServiceandExecutionofProcess  Act:s9(9)SEPA

ByUCPR,anyoriginatingprocessinproceedingsintheSCmustbeservedpersonallyonaprincipalofficerofthecompany:r 10.22UCPR  A“principalofficer”isdefinedunderr10.21UCPR (a) The chairman of president of the governing body of the corporation, or; (b) The general manager, chief executive officer or other person having general management of the affairs of the corporation, or;

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 don’t accept it, by putting the copy down in the persons presence and telling the person the nature of the document

ByServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Cth),thereareseveralwaystoeffectservice  Serviceofaprocess,orderordocumentonacompanyistobeeffectedbyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,thecompany’s registeredoffice(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(1))  Aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonacompanybydeliveringacopyofitpersonallytoadirectorofthecompanywho resideswithinAustralia(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(2)) Ifaliquidator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(3)),officialmanager(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4))or administrator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4A))ofacompanyhasbeenappointed,aprocess,orderordocumentmay beservedonthecompanybyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theofficeoftheliquidator,officialmanageroradministrator lodgedundertheCorporationsAct  Anaffidavitofservicesatisfiesthecourtthatadocumenthasbeenproperlyserved:s11SEPA Therequirementsofthistypeofaffidavitarelessonerous

 ServiceonaDwhoisinterstate  AnoriginatingprocessforserviceinAustralia,butoutsideNSWmustbearastatementthateitherPintendstoproceedunderthe  ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct1992(Cth)orthattheplaintiffintendstoproceedundertheUCPR(UCPR,r10.3(3)). Effectservicebyeitherleavingacopyofdocumentwithperson(UCPR,r10.21(1)),or,wherenotpossiblebythreatofviolence,leave itasnearaspracticabletothatotherperson(UCPR,r10.21(2)) Leavingacopyofdocument Leavingacopyofdocumentwithperson or,ifthepersondoesnotacceptthecopy,byputtingthecopydownintheperson’spresenceandshouldtellthepersonthe natureofthedocument( UCPR,r10.21(1))

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company’s registeredoffice(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(1))  Aprocess,orderordocumentmaybeservedonacompanybydeliveringacopyofitpersonallytoadirectorofthecompanywho resideswithinAustralia(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(2)) Ifaliquidator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(3)),officialmanager(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4))or administrator(ServiceandExecutionofProcessAct,s9(4A))ofacompanyhasbeenappointed,aprocess,orderordocumentmay beservedonthecompanybyleavingitat,orbysendingitbypostto,theofficeoftheliquidator,officialmanageroradministrator lodgedundertheCorporationsAct  Anaffidavitofservicesatisfiesthecourtthatadocumenthasbeenproperlyserved:s11SEPA Therequirementsofthistypeofaffidavitarelessonerous

 ServiceonDwhoisoverseas OriginatingprocessmaybeservedoutsideAustraliainthecircumstancesreferredtoinSchedule6( UCPR,r11.2).AccordingtoSchedule6,theoriginatingprocessmaybe servedoutsideAustraliainrelationtothefollowingcircumstances: a) IftheproceedingsarefoundedonacauseofactionarisinginNSW( UCPR,Schedule6(a) ) b) IftheproceedingsarefoundedonabreachofcontractinNSW,whetherornotthebreachisprecededoraccompaniedbyabreachthatrendersimpossiblethe performanceofanypartofthecontractwhichoughttobeperformedinNSW( UCPR,Schedule6(b)) 43

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)

WhetherDwasproperlyserved WhetherclaimsfallwithinSch6ofUCPR WhetherPhasanarguablecasecapableofsurvivinganordinaryapplicationforsummaryjudgment Whetherlocalforumis“clearlyinappropriate”andthereissomeotherforumwhichismoreappropriate

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

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

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

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

StatementofClaimorSummons?  Summonsareusedwherequestionsoflawareindispute:r6.4UCPR (1) Proceedingsofthefollowingkindsmustbecommencedbysummons: a. proceedingsinwhichthereisnodefendant, b. proceedingsonanappealorapplicationforleavetoappeal,otherthanproceedingsassignedtotheCourtofAppeal, b1.proceedingsbeforetheSupremeCourtintheexerciseofitsjurisdictionundersection69ofthe SupremeCourtAct1970 , c. proceedingsforpreliminarydiscoveryorinspectionunderPart5, d. proceedingsonastatedcase, e. proceedingsonanapplicationforapprovalunder section75oftheCivilProcedureAct2005 ofanagreementforthecompromiseorsettlementofaclaim, f. proceedingsonanapplicationforatransferorderunderPart9ofthe CivilProcedureAct  2005 , g. proceedingsonanapplicationfortheremovalortransferofproceedingstothecourtunderanyAct,otherthananapplicationforatransferorderunder Part9ofthe CivilProcedureAct  2005 , h. proceedings(otherthanproceedingsonaclaimfordamages)onanyapplicationmadeunderanyAct(otherthanthe Civil ProcedureAct2005 ), i. proceedingsonanapplicationtothecourtunderanyAct,otherthan: i. proceedingsonanapplicationunderthe Supreme CourtAct1970 ,theDistrictCourtAct  1973 ortheLocalCourtAct  2007 ,and ii. proceedingsonanapplicationthatmayproperlybemadeinexistingproceedings,  j. anyotherproceedingsthat,pursuanttotheserulesoranyotherrulesofcourt,arerequiredtobecommencedbysummons. (2) Proceedingsofthefollowingkindsmaybecommencedbysummons,exceptwheretheapplicationismadeinproceedingsthathavebeencommencedinthecourt: a. proceedingsonanapplicationforawritofhabeascorpusadsubjiciendum, b. proceedingsonanapplicationforanorderforthecustodyofaminor, c. proceedingsonanapplicationforanorderfortheappointmentofatutorofa personunderlegalincapacity d. proceedingsonanapplicationforadeclarationofright, e. proceedingsonanapplicationforaninjunction, f. proceedingsonanapplicationfortheappointmentofareceiver, g. proceedingsonanapplicationforanorderforthedetention,custodyorpreservationofproperty, h. proceedingsonaclaimforrelieffortrespasstoland Ifproceedingshavealreadybeencommenced,theapplicationshouldbemadebymotion:seerule18.1. (3) ProceedingsintheSupremeCourtthattheplaintiffintendstobeenteredintheCommercialListortheTechnologyandConstructionListaretobecommencedby summons. (4) Proceedings: a. inwhichthesoleorprincipal questionatissueis,orislikelytobe,oneof: i. theconstructionofanActoraCommonwealthAct,or 45

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 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) ) a) b) c) d)

Informationneededonoriginatingprocess 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party’ssolicitororsolicitor’sagent,thecapacityinwhichthepersonactswhenfilingthe document( UCPR,r4.2(1)(f) ) g) Theparty’saddressandtheparty’saddressforservice( UCPR,r4.2(1)(g) ) a) b) c) d) e) f)

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))

Pleadingstocontainfacts,notevidence14.7  Apartyneednotpleadafactiffactispresumedbylawtobetrue(UCPR,r14.10(a))andburdenofdisprovingthefactliesonthe oppositeparty(UCPR,r14.10(b)) Exceptsofarasmaybenecessarytomeetaspecificdenialofthatfactbyanotherparty’spleading.

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

Pleadingstobebrief-14.8

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

Pleadingsmustnotclaimforanunliquidatedamount:r14.13(1) ExceptiontothisistheclaimisintheLocalCourtinregardstorepairtowingorcostofhiringamotorvehicleisaconsequenceof damagedallegedasaresultofnegligencebyDorD’sagentorservant:r14.13(2)

Mattermustbespecificallypleadedbyplaintiffordefendantifitwouldtaketheotherpartybysurprise:r14.14 Materialfactsarenotstatementofmaterialfactsalone–“material”meansmaterialtotheclaim,thatis,tothecause/sofaction whicharereliedupon:KirbyvSanderson(2002) 47

 ApleadingmustdiscloseareasonableCOAandthefactsthatsupportitinordertoassistDtothecasetheyhavetomeet–the  pleadingisnotsufficientifnoCOAcanbededucedfromitwhenthestatementstandsalone:CharlieCartervAlliedEmployees’  Association(WA)(1987) Particularsmustalsobeprovided:r15.1UCPR Theparticularstobegivenmustbesetoutinthepleadingor,ifthatisinconvenient,mustbesetoutinaseparatedocumentreferredtoin thepleadingandfiledwiththepleading(UCPR,r15.9). Theparticularstobegivenbyapleadingthatallegesnegligence(whethercontributoryorotherwise): a) Muststatethefactsandcircumstancesonwhichthepartypleadingreliesasconstitutingtheallegednegligentactoromission( UCPR,r15.5(1)(a) ) b) Ifthepartypleadingallegesmorethanonenegligentactoromission,must,sofaraspracticable,stateseparatelythefactsandcircumstancesonwhichtheparty reliesinrespectofeachallegednegligentactoromission( UCPR,r15.5(1)(b) )

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

Ifpleadingsarenotclear,provideproceduralfairness,etc,andare,instead,intelligible,ambiguous,vagueorjusttoogeneralsoasto embarrasstheoppositepartywhodoesnotknowwhatisallegedagainsthim,thecourtmayorderpleadingbestruckout:PriestvNSW Thismustbesupportedbyparticulars,eithersetoutinthepleadingor,ifthatisinconvenient,setoutinaseparatedocumentreferredtoin thepleadingandfiledwiththepleading:r15.9UCPR  Aparty’spleadingsmustbeverifiedbyaffidavit(UCPR,r14.23(2)). However,thereareexceptionstowhatneedstobeverifiedbyaffidavit

Exceptionstoverificationbyaffidavitwherethereisarecoveryofpagesforthefollowing a) b) c) d) e) f)

Defamation( UCPR,r14.22(1)(a)) Maliciousprosecution( UCPR,r14.22(1)(b) ) Falseimprisonment( UCPR,r14.22(1)(c)) Trespasstotheperson( UCPR,r14.22(1)(d) ) Death(UCPR,r14.22(1)(e)) Personalinjury( UCPR,r14.22(1)(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)

Defendantmustpleadcontributorynegligence:r14.16 Pleadingsmustbeconsistentbutmatterscanbepleadedinthealternative:r14.18 Pleadingsmayraisepointsoflaw:r14.19 Thatsaid,FrenchCJinCharlieCarter(1987)alsonotedthat,althoughr14.19allowsapleadingtoraiseapointoflaw,pleadingsshouldnotcontainmereallegationsor conclusionsoflaw

Cannotpleadthegeneralissue:r14.20

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

…proceedingswillbetakentohavebeendulycommencedasfromdateoffilingandwillbecontinuedaccordingly: GreenwoodvPapademetri(2007) Considerliquidatedvsunliquidatedclaims WhereunliquidatedclaimsinDistrictCourt,PNDC(Civil)1requiresadditionalrequirements: P’spreparationfortrialmustbewelladvancedbeforefilingSOC:para2.1 OnservingSOC,PmustalsoserveonD: Proposedconsentordersforpreparationofcase:para3.1 Notificationofthedateandtimeofthepre-trialconferencewhichwillbeprovidedonfilingoftheSOC:para5.1

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

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

ItisinthedefencethatDcounterclaimsandrequestsfurtherparticulars ParticularsoperatetoassistindefiningthecaseinwhichDhastoanswer:SimsvWran(1984)perHuntJ However,thereisafinelinebetweengivingparticularsofthecase,anddisclosingevidencebywhichthatcaseistobeproved:  AllianzvNewcastleFormwork(2007) Thecourtdoesnotlookkindlyuponanexcessiverequestforparticularsandanunbendingresponsethatthefulllistofparticularsbeprovided

Providingofparticularsisonlyabitmoreonerousinregardstopersonalinjuryclaimswhereafulllistofparticularsare required:r15.12UCPR Pmustalsoprovideparticularsforallegationsoffraud(r15.3),conditionofmind(r15.4),negligenceandtort(r15.5),claimsfor outofpocketexpenses(r15.6),exemplarydamages(r15.7)andaggravateddamages(r15.8),butitisnottothespecificityofr 15.12

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

50

Reply:r14.4UCPR Itispresumedthat,wherethereisnoreplytodefencebyP,thereisadenialofeveryallegationoffactmadeinthe  pleading:r14.27(2)and(5)UCPR Thisresultsinajoinderofalltheissuesinapleading:r14.27UCPR

InproceedingsintheSupremeCourtortheDistrictCourt,aplaintiffmayfileareplytoadefence:subs1 InproceedingsintheLocalCourt,aplaintiffmayfileareplytoadefenceonlybyleaveoftheCourt:subs2 Thetimelimitedfortheplaintifftofileareplyis14daysafterserviceofthedefenceontheplaintiff:subs3

Counterclaimsandsetoffs  Setoffsarewhereonepartycanapplyadebt(liquidatedclaim)owedtohimbyanotherpartytodischargeallorpartyof adebtheowesthatparty DhasarighttosetoffiftherearemutualdebtsbetweenPandDaswayofdefence:CPAs21  s21CPAdoesnotapplytounliquidatedclaimsandisrestrictedtomutualdebts:IntegralHomeLoansvInterstar(No2)(2007)

Counterclaimsisaproceduraldevicewhereactionsbyonepartyagainsttheotherandviceversaareheardpartofone  proceeding:s22CPA Thisisaproceduraldeviceonlyandnotasubstantiveright–anysubstantiverighttoclaimcontributionexistsindependently: DillinghamvSteelMains(1975) Thismeanthatanypartymakingacounterclaimneedstoensurethatthereisaseparaterighttoclaimcontributionfromadifferentareaoflaw,whetherstatutoryorcase law

CounterclaimsagainstPdonothavetorelatedorconnectedtoP’sclaimorariseoutofthesametransaction–itismerely requiredtobewithinthesamepartiestotheoriginalclaimandbeamatterwherecourthasjurisdiction:s22(1)CPA However,Dcanbringacounterclaimagainstapersonwhoisnotapartytotheproceedingsifitisrelatedorconnectedwiththe  subjectoftheexistingproceedings:s22(2)CPA Inthissituation,thenon-partybecomesacross-defendantandisboundbythejudgementbetweenPandD 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

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

Effectofdiscontinuance-doesnotpreventplaintiffstartingagain:r12.3UCPR However,thisissubjecttoconsentandleaverequirementsasoutlinedinr12.1UCPR IfthisoccurswhilePisliabletopaycostsofanotherpartyinrelationtooriginalproceedings,courtmayplaceastayonnewproceedingsuntilcostsarepaid:r12.4UCPR

52

Dismissalofproceedingsforlackofprogress:Pt12Div3 Dismissalduetowantofduedespatch:IfPdoesnotprosecute(subs1)orDconductdefence(subs2)withduedespatch, courtmayorderproceedingsbedismissed,defencesmaybestruckoutinpartorinfull,oranyotherorderthecourtsees  fit:r12.7UCPR ss56-60CPAarerelevantconsiderationsinthecourt’sdecisiontodoso

IntheSupremeCourt,ifnoactionhasbeenmadein5months,courtmaydismissproceedingsofitsownmotion:r12.8 UCPR NoticemustbegiventoPandanyotheractivepartybeforethisistobedone:r12.8(4)UCPR Noticecanbesentbyposttoperson’saddressor,ifnotknow,lastknownaddresswithenvelopemarkedwithreturnaddress:r12.8(5)UCPR

IntheDistrictorLocalCourt,ifnodefenceorcross-claimhasbeenfiled,anapplicationfordefaultjudgementhasnotbeen  filedandproceedingsnototherwisedisposedofin9months,courtmaydismissproceedingsofitsownmotion:r12.9(2) UCPR Nonoticeisneeded:r12.9(3)UCPR

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

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

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

Concludingproceedingsbeforetrial Defaultjudgment PcanapplyforadefaultjudgementifDdoesnotfileanappearanceoradefencewithintherequiredtime:r16.3UCPR DefaultjudgementsprovideanincentiveforDtofileanappearance,adefence(r16.2(1)(a)UCPR),anyaffidavitverifyinghis defence(r16.2(1)(b)UCPR),orDfilesadefencethatthecourtstrikesout(r16.2(1)(c)UCPR)withintheprescribeperiodoftime of28days(r14.3UCPR)  Anyapplicationfordefaultjudgementjustbeaccompaniedby:

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

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

Dcanapplytothecourttoexerciseit’sdiscretiontorulethatadefaultjudgementbesetaside:r36.16(2)(a)UCPR Dmustexplainthedelayinfilingadefenceandsatisfythecourtthatthereisameritabledefence:BorowiakvHobbs(2006).D mustalsoprovethatthereisnoprejudicetotheothersidetobeletbackin CaraccidentbetweenPandD–negligenceofP–Pmadeclaimtoinsurer–met–DsoughttogetdamagecoststocartoNRMA–NRMAfailedtorespondtoletterof demandbyD–Dobtainedadefaultjudgement–applicationbyPtosetasidedefaultjudgement–firstinstancedismissed–secondinstancedismissed–bothhadno reasonwhytherewasadelay–courtfoundthattheactionsofNRMAshow“distainorindifference”totimelimitsimposedbytherulesforthefilingofadefence–the  judgehasnoconcreteruleormandator yformulatofollowinuseof ar36.16unfettereddiscretion–justhasto assesswhetheritwasareasonabl e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

 Andthisprincipleissubjecttotheoverridingpurposeins56CPA s60CPAprovidesthattheuseofthisdiscretionisguidedbyproportionalityprinciples:see:ZanellavMadden(2007)perYoung J Issuere:propertyandentitlements–oneofthepartieshadnotappeared–possiblyinScotland,possiblydead–CourtcandeclareDdead–usualwayofdoingthissuchas puttingupnoticesinScotlandwerenotnecessaryconsideringtheexpenseofdoingsoandtheestatevalue($37k)–astheywerejointtenants,indeclaringDdead,Pwas abletoclaimfullvalueofassets

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

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

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

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

56

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

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

Costordersagainstlawyers Lawyershaveadutytoassistthecourtstoachievetheoverridingpurpose:s56(4)CPA  Anyfailuretodosocangiveacostsorderunders99CPA,whichappliestoseriousneglect,misconductorincompetenceof lawyer:see:TreadwellvHickey  S348LPAachievesthesameaim

Security for costs CourthaspowertoorderPtogivesecurityforD’scostofdefendingP’sclaimandcanorderstayofproceedingsuntilthisis done:r42.21 Thisorderisdiscretionaryanddiscretionisunfettered,butitwillnotbemadeautomatically:BartonvMinisterforForeign  Affairs(1984) Thisisborneoutofaprotectivejurisdictiontoensurethattheprimarypurposeforhavingcostsordersthemselvescanbeachieved Disprotectedagainstriskthatcostsorderedmayturnouttobeofnovalue–itisbothacompensationpurposeandapublicinterestpurpose •

57

Thecourtmaydosoif: PisnormallyaresidentoutsideNSW:subs1 Thecourttook“outsideNSW”tomeanousideAustraliaorapersonwholivesinaTerritory–todefine“outsideNSW”tomean“another stateinAustralianotinNSW”wouldbeunconstitutionalunders117:AusBuildingconstructionEmployeevCommonwealthTradingBank (1976)

 AddressofPisnotstatedormisstatedinoriginatingprocessandthereisreasontobelievethatthiswasduetoanintentionto deceive:subs2 PchangesaddressafterproceedingshavecommencedandPdidsotoavoidconsequencesofproceedings:subs3 Pisacorporationandwillbeunabletopaycostsiforderedtodoso:subsd Theevidencetobereliedonmusthavesomecharacteristicofcogency.Furthermore,speculationastotheinsolvencyorfinancial difficultiesexperiencedbytheplaintiffcompanyisinsufficienttogroundtheexerciseofthediscretion:WarrenMitchellP/LvAustralian MaritimeOfficersUnion(1993) Butgenerally,a“naturalperson”whosueswillnotbeorderedtogivesecuritycosts,howeverpoor:PearsonvNaydler(1977)

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

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

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

58

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

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

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

Offersofcompromise/Calderbankletters Differences • •

CLlackthecertaintyandexplicitconsequencesofUCPRformalsystemofofferofcompromise S73CPAallowsthecourttodetermineinparticularproceedingsofanydisputewheretherehasbeenacompromiseorsettlement–beforethisprovision,itwas notentirelyclearwhetherseparateproceedingswereneededtobecommencedtoresolvesuchdisputes

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P’sclaim:subs4 IfPhasmadeanofferandDfeelstheydonothavesufficientinformationtomakeadecision,theycanaskforparticularswithin14daysof receiptofoffer:subs5

Therearetimelimitstohowlongtheofferisopenforacceptance:subs7 Ifofferwasmadeatleast2monthsbeforetrialdate,closingdateforacceptanceofoffermustnotbelessthan28days:subsa Ifofferwasmadelessthan2monthsbeforetrialdate,closingdateforacceptanceofofferiswhatisreasonableinthecircumstances:subsb

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

Is

Either

Accepted

By

Either

Verdict isfor

P

D P

Not accepted

D

P

Judgementis Entitlementtocosts [noless/less/ On the ordinary basis more] favourable ---P is entitled to an order against D for P’s costsuptothetimetheofferwasmade:r 42.13A(2)UCPR ---Parties bear their own costs: r 42.13A(2)(a) UCPR No less P is entitled to an order against D for P’s costsuptothetimewhichthosecostsare

On an indemnity basis

----

---- PisentitledtoanorderagainstDforP’scosts -(whereofferwasmadebeforetrial)asfrombeginningof 60

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

Not accepted

P

P

Less

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

D

Not accepted

P

D

More

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

thedayafterofferwasmade:r42.14(2)(b)(i)UCPR -(whereofferwasmadeaftertrial)asfrom11amonthe dayafterofferwasmade:r42.14(2)(b)(ii)UCPR DisentitledtoanorderagainstPforD’scosts -(whereofferwasmadebeforetrial)asfrombeginningof thedayafterofferwasmade:r42.15(2)(b)(i)UCPR -(whereofferwasmadeaftertrial)asfrom11amonthe dayafterofferwasmade:r42.15(2)(b)(ii)UCPR DisentitledtoanorderagainstPforD’scosts -(whereofferwasmadebeforetrial)asfrombeginningof thedayafterofferwasmade:r42.15A(2)(b)(i)UCPR -(whereofferwasmadeaftertrial)asfrom11amonthe dayafterofferwasmade:r42.15A(2)(b)(ii)UCPR

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

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

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

MakingaCalderbankoffer D’soffermustbeagenuineofferthatallowsanappropriateopportunityfortheotherpartytoconsidertheoffer ThecourtwilltakeintoabouttheOfferor’scircumstancesinordertodeterminewhethertheofferwasgenuine:MaitlandHospitalvFisher (No2)(1992) 2.5%differencebetweenD’sofferandthejudgementsumisarealandnotatrivialorcontemptuousoffer–however,thecourttookintoaccountthatDwasakitchen maidwhere$6kwould’vebeenasignificantamount 61

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

Generally,a“walk-away”offer(i.e.walkawayfromtheproceedingsandget$Xandeachpartypayowncosts)isnotagenuinecompromise: HerningvGWS(No2)(2005) However,itdependsonthecircumstances–itdependsonwhethertheofferinthecircumstancesrepresentedagenuineattempttoreacha negotiatedsettlement:LeichhardtvGreen(2004)perSantowJ Thisisopposedtoanattempttomerelytriggeranycostssanctions

Rejectionoftheoffermustbeunreasonable: • •

• •

Didtheoffereehavesufficienttimetoconsidertheoffer? Wereanyconditionsattachedtotheofferunreasonable.Thesimplertheoffer,thebetter.Conditionsjustmakeitmorelikelythattheoffereecanrejecttheoffer withimpunity.Offerscanbemadeinclusiveofcostsbutoftenitisbesttomakethemexclusiveofcosts. Offerscanbemadeinthealternative Ifthereisanappeal,donotrelyonapre-trialoffer,makeanotherofferafterthetrialandbeforetheappeal.

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

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

Wherecross-claimmadeafteroffer,producesachangeincircumstancesandOffereerejectsonthisbasis,itmaybeconsideredareasonable rejectionofoffer:RollsRoycevJamesHardie(2001) Whereofferissubjecttoanon-monetarycondition(e.g.apology),thecourtwillusediscretiontoconsiderreasonableofconditionand assesswhetherjudgementresultwasmorefavourablethantheoffer:MagentavRichardEllis(1995) Rejectionofanofferconditionaluponthereleaseofunrelatedproceedingsmaybeconsideredreasonable:BaulderstonevGordian(2006)

62

TypesofCalderbankoffers Offersinclusiveofcosts:ElitevSalmon(2007) TheseareonlycontentiousreallywhenOffereerejectsanofferandreceivesajudgementlessthanthatamount Thisisbecauseitresultsinuncertainty–theofferincludedanunquantifiedelementforcostsincurreduptothetimewhenitwaslapsedorrejected Ofcourse,thiscouldberesolvedbysomeformofassessment,butifthecalculationofdamagescomponentisnotclearlyseentoprovideafigureabovethe  judgement,theninterestsofjusticewillnotusual lybeservedbyi ncurringextraexpenseinasse ssingcosts:perBastenJA •

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

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

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

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

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

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 • • •

25-asubpoenatoattendandgiveevidence 26-asubpoenatoproduce 27-asubpoenatoproduceandtogiveevidence.

Thelastdayofserviceofasubpoenaisthedatefalling5daysbeforetheearliestdatethattheaddresseeisrequiredtocomplyand thedatemustbespecifiedinthesubpoena:r33.3(8)UCPR The5daysare5cleardays:r1.11UCPR

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

RulesfordiscoveryareinPt21UCPR Itisgenerallyonlyprovidedbyleaveofthecourt:r21.2UCPR ThisisprobablywhythepoliceinTuxfordtriedtouseasubpoena(whichcanbejustservedonanotherparty)ratherthanusingdiscovery

65

DiscoveryinNSWisalsonowrestrictedtoclassesofdocuments:r21.2UCPR Generaldiscoverydoesn’treallyexistanymore:CompagnieFinanciereetCommercialeduPacifiquevThePeruvianGuanoCo (1882)perBrettLJ,followedbyMulleyvManifold (1959)at345perMenziesJ

 Anexcludeddocumentisoneofthefollowing(r21.1(1)UCPR) (a) anydocumentfiledintheproceedings, (b) anydocumentservedonpartyAafterthecommencementoftheproceedings, (d) anydocumentthatwhollycameintoexistenceafterthecommencementoftheproceedings,

(c) anyadditionalcopyofadocumentincludedinthelistofdocuments,beingadocumentthatcontainsnomark,deletionor (d) othermatter,relevanttoafactinquestion,notpresentinthedocumentsoincluded (e) anydocumentcomprisinganoriginalwrittencommunicationsentbypartyBpriortothedateofcommencementofthe proceedingsofwhichacopyisincludedinthelistofdocuments, butdoesnotincludeanydocumentthatthecourtdeclaresnottobeanexcludeddocumentforthepurposesofthose proceedings.

 Adocumentistakentobe“relevanttoafactinissue”ifitcouldrationallyaffecttheassessmentofprobabilityofthe existenceofthatfact:r21.1(2)UCPR Wherethecourtordersdiscoveryonaparty,thatparty’ssolicitormustprovideanaffidavitandcertificatesupportinga listofdocuments,swearingonthecompletenessofthelist:r21.4UCPR Lawyersmustnotgiveadvicetodestroydocumentsthatmightberequiredinanticipatedlegalproceedings:r142A,Legal ProfessionRegulation2002(NSW)(AfterMcCabe) BritishAmericanTobaccohadacompanypolicyofdestructingdocuments–EamesJfoundthatafairtrialwasimpossibleasthispolicywasdesignedtopreventevidence frombeingobtained–destructionwassogreattheEamesJfoundthatstrikingoutpleadingwasthemostappropriateformofaction–however,inCA,EamesJhaderred ashehadnotconsideredotherformedofreprimandandprivilegewasnotwaivedsoevidencerelieduponwasincorrectlysubmitted

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”:O’MearavArianayagam(2006)per LathamJ Wheregrantedbythecourt,partiesmayobjectonthebasisorrelevanceorvexatiousoroppressiveness:r22.2UCPR Alsorelevantisprivilegedinformation

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

67

Therealsoneedstobeatestforrelevance:AmericanFlangevRheem(1965) Examplesofnecessaryinterrogatories • •

•

•

•

•

pedestrianaccident—plaintiffwithnomemoryandnoeyewitnesses—interrogatoriesastodetailsofaccident:GriebartvMorris[1920]1KB659; infantplaintiff—contemporaneouspolicestatementbydefendant—interrogatoriesastoaccidentdetails:SchuttvQueenan[2000]NSWCA341; BC200007963 at [11]–[14]; fatalaccident—widow’sclaim—scopeofavailableevidenceunclear—errorofprincipleinrefusinginterrogatories:YamazakivMustaca[1999]NSWSC1083; BC9907282; damagesarisingoutofpersonalinjuryatschool—evidentiarydifficultieswithoutinterrogatories—orderreasonablynecessaryfordisposingfairlyofthematter: BoylevDowns[1979]1NSWLR192at204–5; medicalnegligenceclaim—interrogatoriesrelevanttodiagnosticevaluationandprofessionalexpertise—necessary:ChongvNguyen[2005]NSWSC588; BC200507146 at[9]–[16]; medicalnegligenceclaim—interrogatoriesrelatingtodoctor’sknowledgeanddiagnosticreasoning:KeatingvSouthEastSydneyIllawarraAreaHealthService (NSWSC,HallJ,No20232of2005,7July2006,unreported).

Examplesofunnecessaryinterrogatories •

• • •

•

•

proposedinterrogatoriesdirectedtomaterialmattersalreadyadmittedorthatcouldreadilybeprovedbyawitnesslikelytobecalledatthetrial—notnecessary: McBridevSandland[1917]SALR249; interrogatoryrequestingnamesofpersonstowhomdefamatorystatementwaspublished—notnecessary:White&CovCreditReformAssn[1905]1KB653; interrogatoryaboutintendedmeaningofdefamatorystatement—notnecessary:HeatonvGoldney[1910]1KB754; interrogatorythatwouldrequireapartytoprovideanacknowledgementcontrarytoapleadedlimitationdefence—notnecessary:LovellvLovell [1970]3AllER 721;[1970]1WLR1451; workplacerelatedpsychiatricinjury—interrogatoriessubstantiallydirectedtowardsadequacyofdiscovery—nospecialreasons:CavricvCooperLybrand(ACT) Ltd[2002]NSWSC538;BC200203290; interrogatoriestoidentifymedicalattendancesbyproposedadoptiveparents—noissueoffitness—interrogatoriesintendedtoexplorepossibilityofunfitness: Director-General,DeptofCommunityServicesvD (2006)66NSWLR582;[2006]NSWSC827;BC200606433

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

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

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

 Appealsaftertrialbeforejudgeandjury Theresultwillbedisturbedifjudgefellintoerroroflaworifjury’serrorsoffacttranscendboundsofreason Exceptforassessmentofdamages,issuesoffactmustbere-trialled •

70

 Appealsfromajudge–theremustbeanerroroflaw Rehearings  Apersonaggrievedbyanawardmayapplyforarehearing(s42(1)CPA)andawardissuspendedfromtimeofapplication untilorderforrehearingismade(s42(3)CPA)  Arehearingmustbeorderediftheapplicationwasmadebeforeawardtookeffect(s43(1)CPA)andtheamountclaimedin proceedingsexceedsthejurisdictionallimitoftheLCintheSmallClaimsDivision,i.e.$10k(s43(2)CPA) Further:s43CPA (3)Anorderforrehearingneednotbemadeifitappearstothe courtthattheapplicantfailedtoattenda hearingbeforeanarbitratorwithoutgoodreason. (4)Inanorderforrehearing,the referringcourtmaydirectthattherehearingbeafullrehearingoralimitedrehearing,asthe courtthinksappropriate,andmaydoso regardlessofwhethertheapplicantrequestedafullrehearingoralimitedrehearingormadenosuchrequest. (5)Intheabsenceofadirectionundersubsection(4),therehearingistobeafullrehearing. (6)Anorderforalimitedrehearingmustspecifytheaspectsthataretobethesubjectoftherehearing,whetherbyreferencetospecificissuesindispute,specificpartiesto thedisputeorotherwise. (7)Thereferringcourtmayamendanorderforrehearingatanytimebeforeorduringarehearing.

 Appealsofahearingdenovo Freshhearing

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

71