Civil

Litigation exam notes

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

s 56 CPA requires all litigants in civil proceedings in NSWSC to act as model litigants: Priest v NSW (2007) ................................................................................................. 18
Rulings: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
This all must be assessed in reference to some form of test of proportionality ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
The cost to the parties is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subject-matter in dispute: s 60 CPA ........................................................................................................................... 18
The concept of proportionality of costs in s 60 can influence the demands that the court places on parties: e.g. Zanella v Madden (2007) ....................................................................................... 18
The concept of proportionality of costs in s 60 can also effect litigation in other ways: e.g. Vella v ANZ (2008) ................................................................................................................................... 19

Rules generally: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules operate in conjunction with CPA, they are affirmed by the CPA: s 10 CPA .......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Where rules are inconsistent, uniform rules will prevail over any local rules: s 11 CPA ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Ps must not commence proceedings unless they are ready to comply with the rules: DC PN 1 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
In the Supreme Court, a general case management document must be filed with originating process: SC PN 5 ................................................................................................................................................. 19

Court powers in regards to non-compliance with case management principles: s 61 CPA ............................................................................................................................ 19

Court has power to make any direction it sees fit for speedy determination of issues between parties: subs 1 ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Non-compliance may result in the court dismissing or striking out proceedings, or may enter judgement or costs order as the court sees appropriate: subs 3 ...................................................................... 19
This only occurs where it is absolutely necessary: see: McCabe for criteria ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
r 12.7 UCPR allows the court to entirely dismiss the proceedings based on lack of due dispatch by either party: Phornpisutikul v Mileto (2006) ................................................................................... 19
PRACTICE NOTES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

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

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

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

Embarrassing defined: Priest v NSW ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Embarrassing further defined: Meckiff v Simpson (1968) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 20
ABUSE OF PROCESS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
All courts have inherent powers necessary to enable it to act effectively, to control its own proceedings and prevent abuse of process: Jago v District Court of NSW
(1989) (for Supreme Court), Jackson v Sterling (1987) (for lower courts) ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
To start proceedings with no merit whatsoever is an abuse of process: White industries v Flower & Hart (1998) ........................................................................................ 20
Litigation funding is not an abuse of process or contrary to public policy: Campbells Cash and Carry v Fostif (2006) per Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ ...................... 20
PRIVILEGE .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Dominant purpose test: Esso (1999) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
AFFIDAVITS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Evidence set out in affidavits are an exception to s 32 Evidence Act: Lindsay-Owen v Lake (2000) per Hodgson CJ ...................................................................................... 21
Contrary to s 59 Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is allowed in interlocutory proceedings: s 75 Evidence Act ............................................................................................... 21
All evidence must be based on knowledge, information and belief: s 172 EA ................................................................................................................................................ 21
Notice of affidavits must be served to other parties: s 173 EA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Party A who tenders affidavits must call person who made evidence if Party B requests, but doesnt have to unless requested: r 35.2 UCPR ................................................................................................. 21
Where deponent has died, hearsay rule (s 59 EA) does not apply and affidavit may contain hearsay evidence obvious this also means that the person also cannot be called for cross examination: ss
63 and 67 Evidence Act ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Irregularity does not invalidate affidavit: r 35.1 UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

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

Ethics around affidavits see: ethics notes .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21

PRE-LITIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 22
ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Case management requirements in Federal Courts: Civil Dispute Resolution Act 2011 (Cth) ......................................................................................................................... 22
Pros and cons of ADR ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
DEFINITIONAL STAGE ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
ETHICAL CONSTRAINTS ON LAWYERS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
There is an ethical requirement on lawyers to be timely and efficient in their contact of litigation: rr A.15-A.15B, Advocacy Rules in the Revised Processional Conduct and
Practice Rules 1995 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
There must be reasonable prospects of success: s 345 LPA ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Certificate asserting the reasonable prospects of success must be signed by solicitor: s 347 LPA ....................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Reasonable prospects of success is defined by the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law ................................................................................................................................. 23
For P, there must be a reasonable prospect of damages being recovered on the claim: s 345(1) LPA ....................................................................................................................................................... 23
For D, there must be a reasonable prospect of the defence defeating the claim or leading to a reduction in the damages recovered on the claim: s 345(4) LPA .......................................................... 23
To start proceedings with no merit whatsoever is an abuse of process: White industries v Flower & Hart (1998) .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Must facilitate proceedings to be just, quick and cheap: s 56 CPA ................................................................................................................................................................. 23

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


COMMENCING PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
WHO ARE THE PARTIES? ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
A person under legal incapacity .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
A person under a legal incapacity may not commence or carry on proceedings except by his or her tutor: r 7.14(1) UCPR ............................................................................................................................... 25
Further, unless the court orders otherwise, the tutor of a person under legal incapacity may not commence or carry on proceedings except by a solicitor: r 7.14(2) UCPR ............................................. 25
Person under legal incapacity defined ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Any person (other than a corporation) is eligible to be the tutor of a person under legal incapacity other than a person under legal incapacity (UCPR, r 7.15(2)(a)), a judicial officer or registrar (UCPR, r
7.15(2)(b)), or a person who has interest in the proceedings (UCPR, r 7.15(2)(c)) ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Documents required to validly appoint a tutor ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Standing? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 25
Also consider: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Are legal entities correct? ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Correct defendant? Ensure you are suing the correct D ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Preliminary discovery it must occur in the initial process: Pt 5 UCPR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Discovery for prospective Ds identity and whereabouts ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
The court may make either or both of the following orders against other person in relation to discovery to ascertain this ........................................................................................................... 26
However, the court will only have the power to make such an order where an applicant has made reasonable enquiries and is unable to ascertain the identity or whereabouts of a person
needed for the purpose of commencing proceedings against them (UCPR, r 5.2(1)(a)) .................................................................................................................................................................... 26
Where applicant makes argument and satisfies the court that to make reasonable inquiries is expensive and unreasonably time consuming, the court may not require the person to have
made these inquiries: RTA v Australian National Car Parks (2007) ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 26
Application for preliminary discovery ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
An application must be supported by an affidavit stating facts on which applicants relies and specifying information, documents or things in respect of which order is sought: s 6.2(7)(a)
UCPR .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
A NOM must also be served on each person effected by proposed order: r 18.2 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
A summons (r 6.2(3)) and affidavit (r 5.2(7)(b)) must be personally served on other person ............................................................................................................................................................ 27
Notice must be personally served where person is not party to proceedings (r 18.5(a)) or is party to proceedings but not active (r 18.5(b)) ........................................................................... 27
Discovery to determine whether there is sufficient information to commence proceedings against D ................................................................................................................................................. 27
This application is made by summons: r 6.4(1)(c) UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
The application must satisfy the court that applicant has made reasonable inquiries this is a question of fact which is dependent on the circumstances of the case: Steffen v ANZ (2009) 27
The application must also satisfy the court that the purpose of inspecting documents is to give applicant sufficient information that it reasonably needs to enable it to decide whether to
commence a proceeding: Alphapharm v Eli Lilly (1996) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Three situations where the Court may order discovery ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Joining proceedings: Pt 6, UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
If there are multiple Ds, ensure there is a cause of action against EACH defendant ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Consider joinders if there are overlapping causes of action, defendants or even plaintiffs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 28
Types of joinders ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Key is based on the relevant transaction or the same series of transactions: Payne v Young (1980) .......................................................................................................................................................... 28
Meaning of transaction is not limited to a contractual transaction: Bendir v Anson (1936) .................................................................................................................................................................. 28
In dicta arising out of a hypothetical context, Birtles v Cth (1960) gave a broader interpretation of transaction .............................................................................................................................. 28
This was all reined in with Payne v Young ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Joining of parties: rr 6.19-6.28 .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Court powers to remove joinder .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 28
Where parties are improperly or unneceesarily joined, or where joinder is no longer necessary or proper, court can remove the offending party: r 6.29 UCPR ...................................................... 28


Where a joinder of any kind is embarrassing, inconvenient or causes delay in the proceedings, the court can separate and order separate trials as the court sees fit (r 6.22(a) UCPR) or make
another order the court sees fit (r 6.22(a) UCPR) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Joining Ps ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
An application for joinder of Ps requires SOC or summons (rr 6.3 or 6.4 UCPR), depending on circumstances of the case this also requires a notice of motion (r 18.2 UCPR) and affidavit (r 31.2
UCPR) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Criteria ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Joinder must arise out of the same transaction or the same series of transactions: Payne v Young (1980), r 6.19(1)(b) UCPR ....................................................................................................... 29
The trials, if considered separately, would result in common questions of law and fact: r 6.19(1)(a) UCPR ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Even where these conditions are not fulfilled, the court has discretion to grant leave for Ps to join in the same proceedings: r 6.19 UCPR ....................................................................................... 29
For judicial discretion, the court should consider the overriding purpose of ss 56-60 CPA: Dean-Wilcocks v Air Transit International (2002) ................................................................................ 29
Once considered, they must do a balancing exercise to weigh up advantages and disadvantages to P ....................................................................................................................................... 29
Consent must be given before a party is joined: r 6.25 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Joining Ds ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
An application for joinder of Ps requires SOC or summons (rr 6.3 or 6.4 UCPR), depending on circumstances of the case this also requires a notice of motion (r 18.2 UCPR) and affidavit (r 31.2
UCPR) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Criteria ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Joinder must arise out of the same transaction or the same series of transactions: Payne v Young (1980), r 6.19(1)(b) UCPR ....................................................................................................... 29
Even where these conditions are not fulfilled, the court has discretion to grant leave for Ds to join in the same proceedings: r 6.19 UCPR ....................................................................................... 29
For judicial discretion, the court should consider the overriding purpose of ss 56-60 CPA: Dean-Wilcocks v Air Transit International (2002) ................................................................................ 30
Once considered, they must do a balancing exercise to weigh up advantages and disadvantages to D ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Consent must be given before a party is joined: r 6.25 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
All jointly liable Ds must be sued in the same proceedings and the court can order proceedings be stayed until all joint Ds are parties: r 6.21(2) UCPR ................................................................... 30
Even where P is not too sure which party is liable to him, Ds can be joined in the same proceedings. If the court thinks its reasonable that P joined successful D because of the accusation
of unsuccessful D, Bullock and Sanderson orders may be appropriate ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Causes of action do not have to be the same they can joint, several or in the alternative .................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Retrospective joinders: rr 6.19(2) and 6.24 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30
Leave can be granted for parties to join other parties after proceedings have commenced: r 6.19(2) ....................................................................................................................................................... 30
The court may order parties to be joined to proceedings if they feel the party ought to be joined, or its joinder is necessary to the determination of the proceedings: r 6.24 ................................... 30
This includes non-party who is in possession of whole or part of land that is in dispute in the proceedings may be added as a D: r 6.24(2) ....................................................................................... 30
If the joinder is ordered/granted, the date of commencement of proceedings for that party is the day in which order is made: r 6.28 UCPR ......................................................................................... 30
Removal of joint parties .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
The court may order a party improperly or unnecessarily joined (r 6.29(a) UCPR), or has ceased to be proper or necessary to the proceedings (r 6.29(b) UCPR) to be removed as a party ................ 30
Joinder of causes of action: rr 6.18-6.22 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Causes of action can be joined as long as one of the following is satisfied: ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
Capacity of P and D are within one of r 6.18(1)(a)-(c) UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Court grants leave: r 6.18(1)(d) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
An application for joinder of COAs requires SOC or summons (rr 6.3 or 6.4 UCPR), depending on circumstances of the case this also requires a notice of motion (r 18.2 UCPR) and affidavit (r
31.2 UCPR) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Class/Representative actions: Pt 10 CPA ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Essential requirements: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 31
Representative actions may be commenced against more than one D, irrespective of whether or not each person has a claim against every D: s 158(2) CPA .............................................................. 31
Applications must follow form as outlined in PN SC Gen 17 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Notice requirements also apply: ss 175-176 CPA ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Notices must be accurate and not mislead group members: Courtney v Medtel (2001) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Litigation funding is not an abuse of process or contrary to public policy: Campbells Cash and Carry v Fostif (2006) per Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ ................................................................... 32

INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32

A judgement is interlocutory where an order determines final rights of an matter pending between two parties: Anshun ......................................................................... 32
Types of interlocutory orders .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Interlocutory applications are done by filing a notice of motion: Pt 18 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................ 32
Notice must be filed on each party and be accompanied with an affidavit: r 18.1 UCPR ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Generally NOM must be filed (r 18.2(1) UCPR), but does not need to in the following situations (r 18.2(2) UCPR) ............................................................................................................................................. 32
(a) that person consents to the making of the order, or .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
(b) the preparation, filing or service of the notice would cause undue delay or other prejudice to the person by whom the order is sought, or .................................................................................... 33
(c) the court dispenses with the requirement for such notice to be filed or served, or .............................................................................................................................................................................. 33
(d) under these rules or the practice of the court, the motion may be made without the prior filing or service (as the case may be) of notice of motion. ..................................................................... 33
NOM must be served at least 3 days before date fixed for motion: r 18.4 UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
NOM must be personally served on those who have not entered an appearance: r 18.5 UCPR .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Where NOM has been correctly served, matter may be dealt with in either partys absence: r 18.7 UCPR ......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Directions as to a result of an interlocutory hearing is made under r 18.9 UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
N.B. in regards to hearsay evidence, contrary to s 59 Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is allowed in interlocutory proceedings: s 75 Evidence Act ........................................................................................... 33

Interim preservation orders may be used before or after action is commenced ......................................................................................................................................... 33
Injunctive relief: r 25.2(1)(c) UCPR ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
To do so, applicant must show a PF case and that balance of convenience favours the order being made: Apple v Samsung (2011) ..................................................................................................... 33
Federal Court has power to make such injunctions as the court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to make orders of such kinds that the Court thinks appropriate: s 23
Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Supreme Court has power to do so at any stage of proceedings where it is just or convenient to do so by inherent jurisdiction and s 66(4) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) ........................................... 33
District Court has limited power to grant temporary injunctions for a period not exceeding 14 days to enable Supreme Court proceedings to be commenced: s 141 District Court Act 1973 (NSW) ...... 34
For an interlocutory injunction to succeed, applicant needs to satisfy the court that he has a PF case, as well as satisfying the court that the inconvenience or injury experienced by applicant
outweighs the inconvenience or injury to the other party if injuction were granted: Beecham v Bristol (1968) ............................................................................................................................................. 34
PF case means that application can show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the circumstances, rather than application must show it is more probably than not that, at trial, they will
succeed: ACB v ONeill (2006) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Parties seeking injunctions are usually required to give an undertaking as to damages: r 25.8 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
However, the court cannot compel the giving of an undertaking, but it may refuse application for interlocutory relief unless undertaking is offered: Tucker v New Brunswick (1890)s ..................... 34
Orders for preservation of property: r 25.3 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Orders for disposal of perishable property: r 25.4 UCPR ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Orders for interim distribution of property or income surplus to the subject matter of proceedings: rr 25.5-25.6 UCPR ................................................................................................................................... 34
Orders for payment of shares in a fund before all interested parties are determined: r 25.7 UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Freezing orders (Mareva injunctions): r 25.11 and 25.14 UCPR and Jackson v Sterling (1987) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 34
For lower courts, this power comes from the courts inherent equitable jurisdiction: Jackson v Sterling (1987) ............................................................................................................................................ 34
An application should comply with PN SC Gen 14 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35
Search orders (Anton Piller orders): r 25.19 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 35
Anton Piller orders are obtained on an ex parte basis ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Elements to be satisfied to succeed in obtaining an Anton Piller order: Austress Freyssinet v Joesph (2006) ................................................................................................................................................. 35
An application should comply with PN SC Gen 13 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 35

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

Four broad rationales for limitation periods: Brisbane South Regional Health v Taylor (1996) per HcMugh J ................................................................................................................................................ 35
Limitations are substantive law: John Pfeiffer v Rogerson (2000) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Limitation periods: Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36
Limitation period can be suspended or postponed where the has been fraud or mistake: ss 55 and 56 Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) .................................................................................................................. 36
Limitation period for minors .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Generally, limitation periods for minors are suspended until majority attained: s 52 Limitation Act 1969 ..................................................................................................................................................... 36
However, limitation periods for personal injury matters may not always be suspended ................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
How to determine when COA accrues ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37

What is the appropriate jurisdiction? ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 37

Determining jurisdiction ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 37

Service defines jurisdiction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 37
Jurisdiction has impact on how a case is treated .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Consider what the client wants .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
Types of jurisdiction ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Original .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Federal all matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation .................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Supreme Court anything which may be necessary to do justice ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Appellate ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
High Court appeals from any judgements, degrees, orders and sentences of any federal court, any court exercising federal jurisdiction or Supreme Court of any state ........................................... 38
Federal and State Courts appellate powers governed by legislation ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 38
State Courts jurisdictional limit ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Local Court Civil ($100k for general div and $10k for small claims) under Pt 3 and Criminal under Pt 4: Local Courts Act 2007 (NSW) ............................................................................................. 38
District Court Civil ($750k) under Pt 3 and Criminal under Pt 4: District Court Act 1973 (NSW) .......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Supreme Court Civil and Criminal (unlimited): Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Inherent ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
Supreme court all powers necessary to enable it to act effectively, to control its own proceedings and prevent abuse of process ....................................................................................................... 38
Cross-vesting: Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (Cth and all states) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Under the Cross-vesting Acts, provisions which confer Federal jurisdiction on State courts are valid, but it is unconstitutional to confer State jurisdiction on Federal Courts: Re Wakim; Ex parte
McNally (1999) .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 38
As such, the cross-vesting scheme only provides for: ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Conferral of federal jurisdiction on State courts: s 4, Cth Act ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Cross-vesting of State jurisdiction amongst State courts: e.g. s 4, NSW Act ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 39
Transfer of proceedings between courts participating in the scheme: s 5, NSW Act .................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Ps choice of tribunal and the reasons for it are not to be taken into account in determining whether the proceedings should be transferred to another court: BHP Billiton v Schultz (2004). ............... 39
ORIGINATING PROCEEDINGS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39

Service ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39
Service defines jurisdiction: Laurie v Carroll (1958) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
An affidavit of service satisfies the court that a document has been properly served: r 31.2 UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Service generally .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Effect service by either leaving a copy of document with person (UCPR, r 10.21(1)), or, where not possible by threat of violence, leave it as near as practicable to that other person (UCPR, r
10.21(2)) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Leaving a copy of document .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
There is no need to describe document or actually hand to D it is enough that D knows a document is being offered and they do not reject: Ainsworth v Redd (1990) .................................. 40
If rejected and disputing service, D has onus to prove evidence that document was rejected and sever did not describe: ANZ v Rostkier .................................................................................... 40

Further, D cannot be fraudulently induced into the jurisdiction for the purpose of service: Baldry v Jackson ................................................................................................................................. 40
Where threat of violence ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40
Other methods of service, subject to rules .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Service on a corporation ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 40
By Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), service is by leaving it or posting it to the companys registered office: s 109X(1)(a) CA ............................................................................................................................. 40
By UCPR, originating process must be served on each D: r 6.2(3) UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Any originating process in proceedings in the SC must be served personally: r 10.20(2)(a) UCPR .............................................................................................................................................................. 41
Effect service by serving on a head officer or on a similar officer of the corporation (UCPR, r 10.22), or, if they dont accept, leave it as near as practicable to that other person and telling the
person the nature of the document (UCPR, r 10.21) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
Leaving a copy of document .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
There is no need to describe document or actually hand to D it is enough that D knows a document is being offered and they do not reject: Ainsworth v Redd (1990) .................................. 41
If rejected and disputing service, D has onus to prove evidence that document was rejected and sever did not describe: ANZ v Rostkier .................................................................................... 41
Further, D cannot be fraudulently induced into the jursidction for the purpose of service: Baldry v Jackson .................................................................................................................................. 41
Service on an interstate company .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
An originating process for service in Australia, but outside NSW must bear a statement that either P intends to proceed under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) or that the plaintiff
intends to proceed under the UCPR (UCPR, r 10.3(3)). ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
ss 109X(1) and (2) CA do not apply to a process, order or document that may be served under the Service and Execution of Process Act: s 9(9) SEPA .......................................................................... 41
By UCPR, any originating process in proceedings in the SC must be served personally on a principal officer of the company: r 10.22 UCPR ................................................................................................ 41
A principal officer is defined under r 10.21 UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41
By Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), there are several ways to effect service ........................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Service of a process, order or document on a company is to be effected by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the companys registered office (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(1)) .. 42
A process, order or document may be served on a company by delivering a copy of it personally to a director of the company who resides within Australia (Service and Execution of Process Act, s
9(2)) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
If a liquidator (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(3)), official manager (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(4)) or administrator (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(4A)) of a
company has been appointed, a process, order or document may be served on the company by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the office of the liquidator, official manager or
administrator lodged under the Corporations Act ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
An affidavit of service satisfies the court that a document has been properly served: s 11 SEPA .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Service on a D who is interstate ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 42
An originating process for service in Australia, but outside NSW must bear a statement that either P intends to proceed under the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) or that the plaintiff
intends to proceed under the UCPR (UCPR, r 10.3(3)). ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Effect service by either leaving a copy of document with person (UCPR, r 10.21(1)), or, where not possible by threat of violence, leave it as near as practicable to that other person (UCPR, r
10.21(2)) ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Leaving a copy of document .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42
There is no need to describe document or actually hand to D it is enough that D knows a document is being offered and they do not reject: Ainsworth v Redd (1990) .................................. 43
If rejected and disputing service, D has onus to prove evidence that document was rejected and sever did not describe: ANZ v Rostkier .................................................................................... 43
Further, D cannot be fraudulently induced into the jursidction for the purpose of service: Baldry v Jackson .................................................................................................................................. 43
Where threat of violence ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
By Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), there are several ways to effect service ........................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Service of a process, order or document on a company is to be effected by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the companys registered office (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(1)) .. 43
A process, order or document may be served on a company by delivering a copy of it personally to a director of the company who resides within Australia (Service and Execution of Process Act, s
9(2)) .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43
If a liquidator (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(3)), official manager (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(4)) or administrator (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(4A)) of a
company has been appointed, a process, order or document may be served on the company by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the office of the liquidator, official manager or
administrator lodged under the Corporations Act ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43
An affidavit of service satisfies the court that a document has been properly served: s 11 SEPA .......................................................................................................................................................... 43

Service on D who is overseas ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 43

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

Statement of Claim or Summons? .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 45

Summons are used where questions of law are in dispute: r 6.4 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 45
Forms ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Represented: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Unrepresented: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 46
Statement of Claims are used where issues of fact are in dispute: r 6.3 UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46
Information needed on originating process ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 46

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

Form: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Pleadings to be divided into paragraphs 14.6 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Pleadings to contain facts, not evidence 14.7 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
A party need not plead a fact if fact is presumed by law to be true (UCPR, r 14.10(a)) and burden of disproving the fact lies on the opposite party (UCPR, r 14.10(b)) ................................................ 47
Facts, not allegations, must be pleaded: Gunns v Marr ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Pleadings to be brief - 14.8 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Contents ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
Where there are references in pleadings to documents and conversations, they should describe the effect of the document or conversation: r 14.9 ............................................................................... 47
Pleadings must not claim for an unliquidated amount: r 14.13(1) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47
Exception to this is the claim is in the Local Court in regards to repair towing or cost of hiring a motor vehicle is a consequence of damaged alleged as a result of negligence by D or Ds agent or
servant: r 14.13(2) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 47
Matter must be specifically pleaded by plaintiff or defendant if it would take the other party by surprise: r 14.14 ....................................................................................................................................... 47
Material facts are not statement of material facts alone material means material to the claim , that is, to the cause/s of action which are relied upon: Kirby v Sanderson (2002) ....................... 47
A pleading must disclose a reasonable COA and the facts that support it in order to assist D to the case they have to meet the pleading is not sufficient if no COA can be deduced from it when the
statement stands alone: Charlie Carter v Allied Employees Association (WA) (1987) ................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
Particulars must also be provided: r 15.1 UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
The particulars to be given must be set out in the pleading or, if that is inconvenient, must be set out in a separate document referred to in the pleading and filed with the pleading (UCPR, r
15.9). ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
Pleadings must also be intelligible and state the facts on which P relies for the existence for their COA. Incoherent statements of claim should not be allowed: Markisic v Dept of Community
Services of NSW (2006) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
If pleadings are not clear, provide procedural fairness, etc, and are, instead, intelligible, ambiguous, vague or just too general so as to embarrass the opposite party who does not know what is
alleged against him, the court may order pleading be struck out: Priest v NSW .................................................................................................................................................................................... 48


This must be supported by particulars, either set out in the pleading or, if that is inconvenient, set out in a separate document referred to in the pleading and filed with the pleading: r 15.9
UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 48
A partys pleadings must be verified by affidavit (UCPR, r 14.23(2)). ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48
Exceptions to verification by affidavit where there is a recovery of pages for the following ............................................................................................................................................................. 48
Amendment of pleadings ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Defendant must plead contributory negligence: r 14.16 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Pleadings must be consistent but matters can be pleaded in the alternative: r 14.18 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Pleadings may raise points of law: r 14.19 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Cannot plead the general issue: r 14.20 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Where incorrectly commenced by: ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Summons: r 6.6 UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Statement of claim: r 6.5 UCPR ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
proceedings will be taken to have been duly commenced as from date of filing and will be continued accordingly: Greenwood v Papademetri (2007) ............................................................................... 49
Consider liquidated vs unliquidated claims ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 49
Where unliquidated claims in District Court, PN DC (Civil) 1 requires additional requirements: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Ps preparation for trial must be well advanced before filing SOC: para 2.1 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
On serving SOC, P must also serve on D: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Proposed consent orders for preparation of case: para 3.1 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49
Notification of the date and time of the pre-trial conference which will be provided on filing of the SOC: para 5.1 ............................................................................................................................. 49
Any particulars of the claim that are required should have been requested and supplied by time of pre-trial conference: para 3.3 ........................................................................................................ 49

Defence ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
If D does not respond or specifically deny each factual allegation in the SOC, those facts are deemed to be admitted: r 14.26 UCPR ............................................................................................................... 50
A party may not withdraw an admission or any matter that operates for the benefit of another party without consent of the other party or by leave of the court: r 12.6(2) UCPR ................................. 50
However, any defence may be withdrawn at any time (r 12.6(1) UCPR) by filing a notice of withdrawal stating the extent of the withdrawal (r 12.6(3) UCPR) ...................................................................... 50
Where withdrawal is by consent, notice of withdrawal must be accompanied by a notice of consent by all relevant parties: r 12.6(4) UCPR .............................................................................................. 50
It is in the defence that D counter claims and requests further particulars .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Particulars operate to assist in defining the case in which D has to answer: Sims v Wran (1984) per Hunt J .................................................................................................................................................. 50
However, there is a fine line between giving particulars of the case, and disclosing evidence by which that case is to be proved: Allianz v Newcastle Formwork (2007) .............................................. 50
Providing of particulars is only a bit more onerous in regards to personal injury claims where a full list of particulars are required: r 15.12 UCPR ...................................................................................... 50
P must also provide particulars for allegations of fraud (r 15.3), condition of mind (r 15.4), negligence and tort (r 15.5), claims for out of pocket expenses (r 15.6), exemplary damages (r 15.7) and
aggravated damages (r 15.8), but it is not to the specificity of r 15.12 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 50
The court can make an order for particulars to be filed: r 15.10(1)(a) UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50

Reply: r 14.4 UCPR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

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

Counter claims and set offs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51

Set offs are where one party can apply a debt (liquidated claim) owed to him by an other party to discharge all or party of a debt he owes that party .................................................................................. 51
D has a right to set off if there are mutual debts between P and D as way of defence: CPA s 21 .................................................................................................................................................................... 51
s 21 CPA does not apply to unliquidated claims and is restricted to mutual debts: Integral Home Loans v Interstar (No 2)(2007) ........................................................................................................... 51
Counter claims is a procedural device where actions by one party against the other and vice versa are heard part of one proceeding: s 22 CPA ............................................................................................. 51
This is a procedural device only and not a substantive right any substantive right to claim contribution exists independently: Dillingham v Steel Mains (1975) ............................................................. 51


Counter claims against P do not have to related or connected to Ps claim or arise out of the same transaction it is merely required to be within the same parties to the original claim and be a
matter where court has jurisdiction: s 22(1) CPA ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 51
However, D can bring a counter claim against a person who is not a party to the proceedings if it is related or connected with the subject of the existing proceedings: s 22(2) CPA .......................... 51
This party must be served with both the originating process and the cross claim: r 9.7 UCPR .............................................................................................................................................................. 52
Counter claims must be made in the same time limit for a party to file a defence: r 9.1 UCPR ....................................................................................................................................................................... 52
For proceedings commencing as a SOC, this period is 28 days after service or such time the court directs: r 6.10(1)(a) UCPR ................................................................................................................. 52
Defences to a counter claim must be made in the same manner as a SOC: r 9.4 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
If a cross D does not file a defence, the decision as between parties to the counter claim, are binding: r 9.5 UCPR ................................................................................................................................. 52
DISCONTINUANCE, WITHDRAWAL, SUMMARY DISMISSAL AND SETTING ASIDE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS: PT 12 UCPR ............................................................................................................. 52

P may do so in regards to all claims for relief or all claims for relieve in respect to a particular D by filing a notice of discontinuance: r 12.1(1) UCPR ............................... 52
However, this requires consent of each active party (subs a), and with leave of the court (subs b) .................................................................................................................................................................... 52
Notice of discontinuance must have a certificate by solicitor saying that P is only discontinuing for themselves and for no one else: subs 2(a) ............................................................................................... 52
However, if the notice is to represent more than P, there must be a notice from each party whose consent is required under subs 1 to the effect that the relevant party consents to the proceedings
being discontinued, with leave of the court: subs 2(b) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
In this instance, a notice of consent is required: subs 3 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52
This rule does not apply to proceedings on a counter claim: subs 5 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

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

Dismissal 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 courts decision to do so ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 53
In the Supreme Court, if no action has been made in 5 months, court may dismiss proceedings of its own motion: r 12.8 UCPR ...................................................................................................................... 53
Notice must be given to P and any other active party before this is to be done: r 12.8(4) UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 53
In the District or Local Court, if no defence or cross-claim has been filed, an application for default judgement has not been filed and proceedings not otherwise disposed of in 9 months, court may
dismiss proceedings of its own motion: r 12.9(2) UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 53
No notice is needed: r 12.9(3) UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53
DEFECTIVE PLEADINGS .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 53

Summary judgment ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 53

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

Striking out pleadings ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54

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

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 UCPR ................................................................................................................................ 54
Default judgements provide an incentive for D to file an appearance, a defence (r 16.2(1)(a) UCPR), any affidavit verifying his defence (r 16.2(1)(b) UCPR), or D files a defence that the court strikes out
(r 16.2(1)(c) UCPR) within the prescribe period of time of 28 days (r 14.3 UCPR) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 54
Any application for default judgement just be accompanied by: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 54
Affidavits in support of requirements: r 16.6 UCPR (in regards to liquidated claims) or r 16.7 UCPR (in regards to unliquidated claims) ................................................................................................. 55
Affidavit of service of the originating process: r 16.3 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
Liquidated vs Unliquidated claims ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
In the case of a liquidated claim (r 16.6 UCPR), P must file: ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
The required notice of motion, ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
An affidavit of service of the statement of claim, ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
An affidavit in support which will contain proof of the debt - note that the affidavit should include a statement the source of the knowledge, information or belief on which the affidavit is based
[section 172 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)]. .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 55
N.B. Once the Registry has processed these documents, judgment is entered and the plaintiff can take steps to enforce the judgment. .......................................................................................... 55
In the case of an unliquidated claim (r 16.7 UCPR), judgement is entered in favour of D and matter proceeds with an assessment of damages to which P is entitled: r 16.7 UCPR ................................. 55
Neither service of the application for default judgement, or the presence of D is needed: r 16.4(1A) UCPR .................................................................................................................................................. 55
D can apply to the court to exercise its discretion to rule that a default judgement be set aside: r 36.16(2)(a) UCPR ........................................................................................................................................ 55
D must explain the delay in filing a defence and satisfy the court that there is a meritable defence: Borowiak v Hobbs (2006). D must also prove that there is no prejudice to the other side to be let
back in ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 55
COSTS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56

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

This principle is subject to the court making some other order it sees fit (r 42.1 UCPR) this includes costs orders on the ordinary or indemnity basis (s 98 CPA) ................................................................. 56
Indemnity costs should be paid other than thse that appear to have been unreasonably incurred or appear to be of an unreasonable amount: r 42.5(b) UCPR ............................................................... 56
And this principle is subject to the overriding purpose in s 56 CPA ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
s 60 CPA provides that the use of this discretion is guided by proportionality principles: see: Zanella v Madden (2007) per Young J ........................................................................................................... 56
See also: Vella v ANZ (2011) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Also bear in mind that costs made following interlocutory decisions are payable on the conclusion of proceedings unless the court otherwise orders: r 42.7 UCPR ............................................................. 56

Cost assessments are rarely made, but when made, are done so under s 353 LPA ........................................................................................................................................ 56
Exception to the costs follow the event rule are Bullock and Sanderson orders ............................................................................................................................................. 56
This is a situation where there is one P and two Ds (D1 and D2) P wins against D2, P loses against D1 ........................................................................................................................................................... 57
Bullock order is where P pays D1, but P can recover costs from D2 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Sanderson order is where D2 pays P directly and pays D1 directly .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57
Bullock and Sanderson orders may be made where it was (i) reasonable for P to proceed against D1, and (ii) the conduct of D2 drew D1 into litigation ................................................................................ 57

Cost orders against lawyers ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 57

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

Security for costs ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 57

Court has power to order P to give security for Ds cost of defending Ps claim and can order stay of proceedings until this is done: r 42.21 ................................................................................................... 57
This order is discretionary and discretion is unfettered, but it will not be made automatically: Barton v Minister for Foreign Affairs (1984) ............................................................................................... 57
The court may do so if: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 58
P is normally a resident outside NSW: subs 1 .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 58

11


The court took outside NSW to mean ouside Australia or a person who lives in a Territory to define outside NSW to mean another state in Australia not in NSW would be
unconstitutional under s 117: Aus Building construction Employee v Commonwealth Trading Bank (1976) ........................................................................................................................................ 58
Address of P is not stated or misstated in originating process and there is reason to believe that this was due to an intention to deceive: subs 2 ................................................................................. 58
P changes address after proceedings have commenced and P did so to avoid consequences of proceedings: subs 3 ............................................................................................................................... 58
P is a corporation and will be unable to pay costs if ordered to do so: subs d ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 58
The evidence to be relied on must have some characteristic of cogency. Furthermore, speculation as to the insolvency or financial difficulties experienced by the plaintiff company is insufficient
to ground the exercise of the discretion: Warren Mitchell P/L v Australian Maritime Officers Union (1993) ........................................................................................................................................ 58
P is suing for the benefit of the other and P will be unable to pay costs of D: subs e .................................................................................................................................................................................. 58
However, establishing one of these does not necessarily mean that an order is justified ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Generally, a natural person who sues will not be ordered to give security costs, however poor: Pearson v Naydler (1977) .................................................................................................................. 58
Even with corporations, the evidence to be relied on must have some characteristic of cogency. Furthermore, speculation as to the insolvency or financial difficulties experienced by the plaintiff
company is insufficient to ground the exercise of the discretion: Warren Mitchell P/L v Australian Maritime Officers Union (1993) .................................................................................................. 58
Facts to be considered in the balancing process of factors in use of discretion: Idoport v NAB (2001) ...................................................................................................................................................... 58
That regard is to be had to the strength and bona fides of the applicants case .................................................................................................................................................................................... 59
Whether the applicants impecuniosity was caused by the respondents conduct subject of the claim ................................................................................................................................................ 59
Whether the respondents application for security is oppressive, in the sense that it is being used merely to deny an impecunious applicant a right to litigate ...................................................... 59
Whether there are any persons standing behind the company who are likely to benefit from the litigation and who are willing to provide the necessary security, and if yes ................................ 59
Whether persons standing behind the company have offered any personal undertaking to be liable for the costs and if so, the form of any such undertaking ....................................................... 59
Security will only ordinarily be ordered against a party who is in substance a plaintiff, and an order ought not to be made against parties who are defending themselves (e.g. directly resisting
proceedings already brought or seeking to halt self-help procedures) and thus forced to litigate. ....................................................................................................................................................... 59
Any application for security for costs should be made promptly as it is unfair to lull P into preparation of the proceedings: Avner v Dimopoulos ................................................................................... 59
Non-compliance with security orders may result in the court dismissing Ps proceedings: r 42.21 UCPRs ...................................................................................................................................................... 59

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 Ps claim: subs 4 ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
If P has made an offer and D feels they do not have sufficient information to make a decision, they can ask for particulars within 14 days of receipt of offer: subs 5 ........................................ 60
There are time limits to how long the offer is open for acceptance: subs 7 ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
If offer was made at least 2 months before trial date, closing date for acceptance of offer must not be less than 28 days: subs a ................................................................................................. 60
If offer was made less than 2 months before trial date, closing date for acceptance of offer is what is reasonable in the circumstances: subs b .......................................................................... 60
Accepting or rejecting an offer .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Offer must be accepted in writing within 28 days (unless otherwise stated in the offer) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 60
Table of entitlement to costs ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60
If accepted and unless otherwise specified in the notice of offer, all payment under the offer must be made within 28 days of the offer: r 20.26(8) UCPR .............................................................. 61
Calderbank letter ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
Form .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Must make clear that this is a Calderbank letter by either saying this is a Calderbank letter or without prejudice except with costs this allows you to go to take the letter to court to prove
your offer and be able to apply to claim for indemnities from the day of the offer: Calderbank v Calderbank (1975) ............................................................................................................................... 61
Offer can be inclusive or exclusive of costs .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 61
Making a Calderbank offer ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61
Ds offer must be a genuine offer that allows an appropriate opportunity for the other party to consider the offer ................................................................................................................................ 61

12

The court will take into about the Offerors circumstances in order to determine whether the offer was genuine: Maitland Hospital v Fisher (No 2) (1992) ............................................................ 61
NSWCA found that $129.24 difference was held to constitute a genuine offer of compromise: Forbes Memorial Club v Hodge (1995) ............................................................................................. 62
Generally, a walk-away offer (i.e. walk away from the proceedings and get $X and each party pay own costs) is not a genuine compromise: Herning v GWS (No 2) (2005) ................................ 62
However, it depends on the circumstances it depends on whether the offer in the circumstances represented a genuine attempt to reach a negotiated settlement: Leichhardt v Green
(2004) per Santow J ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 62
Rejection of the offer must be unreasonable: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 62
Rejection of an offer when Offeree know there is evidence that will go against him may be held unreasonable: Blagojevch v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) .......................... 62
Greater sympathy accorded to Offeree who receives offer early in proceedings where there has been no reasonable opportunity for it to assess its questions of liability or likely exposure in
damages this is assessed on case-by-case basis: Elite v Salmon (2007) per Basten JA ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Where cross-claim made after offer, produces a change in circumstances and Offeree rejects on this basis, it may be considered a reasonable rejection of offer: Rolls Royce v James Hardie
(2001) ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 62
Where offer is subject to a non-monetary condition (e.g. apology), the court will use discretion to consider reasonable of condition and assess whether judgement result was more favourable
than the offer: Magenta v Richard Ellis (1995) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 62
Rejection of an offer conditional upon the release of unrelated proceedings may be considered reasonable: Baulderstone v Gordian (2006) .................................................................................. 62
Types of Calderbank offers ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63
Offers inclusive of costs: Elite v Salmon (2007) ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63
These are only contentious really when Offeree rejects an offer and receives a judgement less than that amount ............................................................................................................................. 63
Non-conforming rule offers .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Rule offers that do not conform with UCPR requirements should not automatically be considered to be a Calderbank letter it depends on the intention of the Offeror as revealed by terms of
the offer: Salvation Army v Becker (No 2)(2007) per Ipp JA .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Offer of compromise limited to liability: Vale v Eggins (No 2) (2007) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Offer in the alternative: Vale v Eggins (No 2)(2007) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 63
Offer foregoing interest (as you are entitled to under ss 100 [up to judgement] and 101 [after judgement] CPA): Manly Council v Byrne (No 2)(2004) ......................................................................... 63
Orders ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 63
Calderbank offer does not automatically result in the court making an order for indemnity costs: SMEC v Campbelltown City Council (2000) ....................................................................................... 63

EVIDENCE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
SUBPOENAS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
The power to issue a subpoena is set out in s 68 CPA. The rules in regards to subpoenas is set out in Pt 33 UCPR ....................................................................................... 64
Formal requirements: r 33.3 UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 64
The approved forms are Forms 25, 26 and 27 .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
The last day of service of a subpoena is the date falling 5 days before the earliest date that the addressee is required to comply and the date must be specified in the subpoena: r 33.3(8) UCPR ... 64
The 5 days are 5 clear days: r 1.11 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
The court may set side the subpoena on application of a party or person with sufficient interest: r 33.4 ................................................................................................................................................. 64
Conduct money as defined in r 33.1 UCPR must be tendered at reasonable time before date attendance is required before the person is required to comply: r 33.6(1) UCPR ................................... 64
A subpoena may not be used as a substitute for discovery: Commissioner of Railways v Small (1938) per Jordan CJ ......................................................................................................................................... 64
Subpoenas may only be used for a legitimate forensic purpose and not as part of a fishing expedition it is considered to be an abuse of process: Small (1938) ............................................................. 64
rd
A subpoena is sent out to 3 parties a notice to produce is for parties to proceedings .................................................................................................................................................................................... 64
NOTICE TO PRODUCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65

The power to issue notices to produce before hearing is in Pt 21 Div 2 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................ 65
A party must produce documents or things that are referred to in any originating process, pleading, affidavit or witness statement filed or served that is clearly identified and relevant to a fact in issue: r
21.10 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65
The approved form for this type of notice is form 19. ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65
Form ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65

13

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

The power to issue notices to produce at hearing is in Pt 34 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................................ 65

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

DISCOVERY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65
Rules for discovery are in Pt 21 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 65
It is generally only provided by leave of the court: r 21.2 UCPR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
Discovery in NSW is also now restricted to classes of documents: r 21.2 UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
General discovery doesnt really exist any more: Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co (1882) per Brett LJ, followed by Mulley v Manifold (1959) at 345 per
Menzies J ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
An excluded document is one of the following (r 21.1(1) UCPR) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66
(a) any document filed in the proceedings, .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
(b) any document served on party A after the commencement of the proceedings, ................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
(d) any document that wholly came into existence after the commencement of the proceedings, ........................................................................................................................................................... 66
(c) any additional copy of a document included in the list of documents, being a document that contains no mark, deletion or ............................................................................................................ 66
(d) other matter, relevant to a fact in question, not present in the document so included ........................................................................................................................................................................ 66
(e) any document comprising an original written communication sent by party B prior to the date of commencement of the proceedings of which a copy is included in the list of documents, ....... 66
but does not include any document that the court declares not to be an excluded document for the purposes of those proceedings. ....................................................................................................... 66
A document is taken to be relevant to a fact in issue if it could rationally affect the assessment of probability of the existence of that fact: r 21.1(2) UCPR ........................................................................ 66
Where the court orders discovery on a party, that partys solicitor must provide an affidavit and certificate supporting a list of documents, swearing on the completeness of the list: r 21.4 UCPR ........... 66
Lawyers must not give advice to destroy documents that might be required in anticipated legal proceedings: r 142A, Legal Profession Regulation 2002 (NSW) (After McCabe) ..................................... 66

There is an implied undertaking that discovered documents can only be used in proceedings for which they have been discovered, unless they have been tendered in
evidence: Home Office v Harman (1983) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 67

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

This is different from particulars as these are answered on oath and seek admissions from other parties ................................................................................................... 67
This is also different from notice to admit facts (r 17.3 UCPR) where, if you serve notice to admit facts and other party does not respond, it is assumed correct .................................................................. 67
Other party must reply within 14 days of service: r 17.3(2) UCPR .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
However, the other party may withdraw admission with leave of the court: r 17.3(3) UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Interrogatories cannot be made without special reasons and may only be made by order from the court: r 22.1 UCPR .............................................................................. 67
Special reasons are reasons out of the ordinary, extraordinary or exceptional: OMeara v Arianayagam (2006) per Latham J .................................................................................................................... 67
Where granted by the court, parties may object on the basis or relevance or vexatious or oppressiveness: r 22.2 UCPR .................................................................................................................................. 67
Vexatiousness and oppressiveness is governed by the proportionality principles in s 61 CPA ........................................................................................................................................................................ 67

There also needs to be a test for relevance: American Flange v Rheem (1965) ............................................................................................................................................. 68
Examples of necessary interrogatories ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Examples of unnecessary interrogatories ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 68
Relevant forms are Form 21 for interrogatories and For 22 for statement of answers to interrogatories ..................................................................................................... 68
JUDGEMENT .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 69
14

GENERALLY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69
Power of the court: s 90 CPA .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
r 36.1 UCPR gives court a power to make a judgement as the case requires ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

Consent orders allow judges to affirm the settlement agreement between parties: r 36.1A UCPR ............................................................................................................... 69
Must be filed under this rule to bring proceedings to an end ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

Reasons for judgements must be given: r 36.2 UCPR ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 69

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

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

EFFECT OF JUDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 69

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

Issue estoppel ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 70

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

Anshun estoppel ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 70

Concerned with a claim so closely connected with the subject matter of a previous action that it was expected that it would be relied upon as defence to that claim ......................................................... 70
Principle is that, if an issue was available in the first instance and not raised, it cannot be raised in subsequent proceedings ...................................................................................................................... 70
APPEALS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 70

Appeals to supervisory jursidction .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 70

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

Appeals of a hearing de novo ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 71

Procedure follow PN SC CA 1 ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 71
ENFORCEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Judgement must be entered before it can be enforced: s 133(1) CPA ............................................................................................................................................................ 72
A registrar must furnish a sealed copy of any judgement or order to anyone who applies for a copy: r 36.12 UCPR .......................................................................................................................................... 72
The exception is any proceedings under the Adoption Act 2000 this may only delivered to P unless court orders otherwise: r 36.12(3) UCPR ......................................................................................... 72

An instalment order can be made where they have no assets: Pt 8 CPA, Pt 39 UCPR .................................................................................................................................... 72
Once complied with orders, must satisfy the court by filing a writ of execution ............................................................................................................................................ 72
Application is under r 39.2 UCPR ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
Application must accompanied by an affidavit in support of application of writ of execution: r 39.3 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................... 72

If cannot comply with orders, can apply for a garnishee order (i.e. take money out of your pay directly) a r 39.34 UCPR application can be filed to do so ..................... 72
15

Application must accompanied by an affidavit in support of application of writ of execution: r 39.35 UCPR ................................................................................................................................................. 72

In the SC or DC, a judgement debt may be enforced by a charging order: s 106(1)(c) CPA ............................................................................................................................ 72

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

16

General Principles
Procedural vs Substantive Law: John Pfeiffer v Rogerson (1997)
Substantive law = legal rights, duties, powers and liabilities
It concerns the ends which the administration of justice seeks: Adam P Brown v Phillip Morris (1981)

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

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

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

Overriding purpose is that all civil matters must facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in
dispute: s 56 CPA
56 Overriding purpose
(cf SCR Part 1, rule 3)
(1) The overriding purpose of this Act and of rules of court, in their application to civil proceedings, is to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in
the proceedings.
(2) The court must seek to give effect to the overriding purpose when it exercises any power given to it by this Act or by rules of court and when it interprets any provision
of this Act or of any such rule.
(3) A party to civil proceedings is under a duty to assist the court to further the overriding purpose and, to that effect, to participate in the processes of the court and to
comply with directions and orders of the court.
(4) Each of the following persons must not, by their conduct, cause a party to civil proceedings to be put in breach of a duty identified in subsection (3):
(a) any solicitor or barrister representing the party in the proceedings,
17


(b) any person with a relevant interest in the proceedings commenced by the party.
(5) The court may take into account any failure to comply with subsection (3) or (4) in exercising a discretion with respect to costs.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person has a
"relevant interest" in civil proceedings if the person:
(a) provides financial assistance or other assistance to any party to the proceedings, and
(b) exercises any direct or indirect control, or any influence, over the conduct of the proceedings or the conduct of a party in respect of the proceedings.
Note: Examples of persons who may have a relevant interest are insurers and persons who fund litigation.

Just:
The court must act in accordance with the dictates of justice: s 58 CPA
However, justice is expressed not only by the courts acknowledgement of the rights of the parties to the proceedings, but also
considering the interests of other litigants and the public: Aon v ANU (2009).
Facts of case

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

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

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

Rulings:
This all must be assessed in reference to some form of test of proportionality
The cost to the parties is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the subject-matter in dispute: s 60 CPA
The concept of proportionality of costs in s 60 can influence the demands that the court places on parties: e.g. Zanella v Madden (2007)
Property registered in name of P and D as joint tenants P wishes to realize the land, but has not heard of D for many years P had paid majority of the purchase money by
paying out mortgage evidence is that D has not been seen since 1980 D is originally from Scotland could have organized ads in Scotland, but when considering that the
estate is only $37,500, the cost of putting such ads is too great declared dead by the court, as such, P takes full worth of property
18

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

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

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

Ps must not commence proceedings unless they are ready to comply with the rules: DC PN 1

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

In the Supreme Court, a general case management document must be filed with originating process: SC PN 5
Court powers in regards to non-compliance with case management principles: s 61 CPA
Court has power to make any direction it sees fit for speedy determination of issues between parties: subs 1
Directions are the power to direct parties about the conduct of the matter

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

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

19

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

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 didnt want to pay any more money sought advice from lawyers (F) to see how
they can get around it advice of F was that case was arguable and rather weak nevertheless, counsel prepared a statement of claim arguing fraud (as a holding strategy
to keep WI at bay) and also s 52 TPA for misleading and deceptive conduct Court found abuse of process and noted that there is an ethical obligation on practitioners as
well

Litigation funding is not an abuse of process or contrary to public policy: Campbells Cash and Carry v Fostif (2006) per
Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ
Existing doctrines of abuse of process and the courts ability to protect their processes would be sufficient to deal with a funder conducting themselves in a manner
inimical to the due administration of justice
Mason P in Court of Appeal said that the law looks favourably on funding arrangements that offer access to justice as long as any tendency to abuse of process is
controlled
20

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

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

Contrary to s 59 Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is allowed in interlocutory proceedings: s 75 Evidence Act
All evidence must be based on knowledge, information and belief: s 172 EA
Affidavit must set out the source of knowledge, information and belief

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

Pros and cons of ADR

Pros
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

Cons
Suitability may not be suitable for every dispute, .e.g
precedents to be set, public interest case, etc
Lack of court protections if an ADR solution is
accepted, parties generally give up court protections,
including right to a decision by judge or jury, etc
Lack of enforceability

Saves time and money for parties as well as courts and

government
More participation more chance to tell their side of the Disclosure of information ADR may not be effective if it
story than as would in court. Parties may also have
takes place before the parties have sufficient
greater control over the outcome
information about the strengths and weaknesses of their
respective cases
Flexibility and creative solutions
Cost if a dispute is resolved through ADR after
proceedings have commenced, parties may have to put
time and money into both ADR and court hearing
Cooperative this can help preserve relationships
Delay ADR adds an extra step, which might cause a
delay
Less stress
Fairness procedural rules that govern court
proceedings as safeguards for fairness are not
necessarily included in ADR
Confidentiality
Power imbalances ADR doesnt really work if one party
is stronger than the other
Statistically good results settlement rates are between Delaying tactics ADR is sometimes used as a delaying
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 Revised Processional Conduct and Practice Rules 1995
See also rr 56-59, NSW Barristers Rules

There must be reasonable prospects of success: s 345 LPA

Certificate asserting the reasonable prospects of success must be signed by solicitor: s 347 LPA
Reasonable prospects of success is defined by the basis of provable facts and a reasonably arguable view of the law
For P, there must be a reasonable prospect of damages being recovered on the claim: s 345(1) LPA
For D, there must be a reasonable prospect of the defence defeating the claim or leading to a reduction in the damages recovered on
the claim: s 345(4) LPA

To start proceedings with no merit whatsoever is an abuse of process: White industries v Flower & Hart (1998)
WI had contract to build shopping centre price discrepancies client to WI decided they didnt want to pay any more money sought advice from lawyers (F) to see how
they can get around it advice of F was that case was arguable and rather weak nevertheless, counsel prepared a statement of claim arguing fraud (as a holding strategy
to keep WI at bay) and also s 52 TPA for misleading and deceptive conduct Court found abuse of process and noted that there is an ethical obligation on practitioners as
well

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

Things to consider b
- Reasonable prospe
- Limitation periods
- Summons or SOC?
- Jurisdiction/Cross-
- Interlocutory proce
- Alternative Disput
- Mediation
- Subpoenas
- Notices to produce
- Case management

Commencing proceedings

Step
1

What to do
In writing, inform P of the requirements under the District Court Practice Note 1 (DC PN 1) before commencing proceedings or filing
a dispute
Commence proceedings by either:
Statement of Claim (SOC): must comply with rr 6.2, 6.12, 6.13 UCPR
o Must include certificate signed by PS that Ps case has reasonable prospects of success: s. 347 LPA

Who?
PS

Service on D must serve the following documents:

SOC: r. 15.12(3) UCPR
Documentary evidence: r. 15.12(2) UCPR
Timetable for future conduct: cl. 3.1 DC PN 1
These documents must be served within one month from date filed: r. 6.2(4)(b) UCPR
Defence
Must be filed within 28 days of service by:
o Notice of appearance: r. 6.9 UCPR; or
o Defence: r. 14.3 UCPR
Must also include certificate signed by DS that Ds case has reasonable prospects of success: s. 347 LPA
If further particulars required, request before filing a defence instead, seek an order by the court to extend the return date to be
after 28 days: r. 14.3(1) UCPR

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

P/PS

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

P/PS

Cross claim must be filed the same time as defence

Must also include certificate signed by DS that Ds case has reasonable prospects of success: s. 347 LPA
Also, D must serve all copies of pleadings filed to date: r. 9.7

Defence to cross claim operates the same way as Step 4: rr. 9.4 and 9.5 UCPR
Must also include certificate signed by CDS that CDs case has reasonable prospects of success: s. 347 LPA
Subpoenas must file to 3rd parties as soon as possible: cl. 6.1 DC PN 1

CD

P/PS

Legend:
P = Plaintiff
D = Defendant

CD = Cross Defendan
PS = Ps Solicitor
DS = Ds Solicitor
CDS = CDs solicitor

Things to consider o
- Interlocutory proce
- Cross vesting
- Particulars
- Judgement before
means show cause
- Discovery
- Subpoenas
- Notices to produce
- Affidavits
- Case management

All

24

Who are the parties?

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

A person under legal incapacity

A person under a legal incapacity may not commence or carry on proceedings except by his or her tutor: r 7.14(1) UCPR
Further, unless the court orders otherwise, the tutor of a person under legal incapacity may not commence or carry on
proceedings except by a solicitor: r 7.14(2) UCPR
Anything that the UCPR authorises or requires a party to do in relation to the conduct of proceedings may, if the party is a person under legal incapacity, be done on his or
her behalf by his or her tutor: r 7.15(6) UCPR

Person under legal incapacity defined

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

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

Documents required to validly appoint a tutor

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

Correct defendant? Ensure you are suing the correct D

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

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

Preliminary discovery cannot be used once the matter is on foot

Discovery of documents (r 5.2) can assist in obtaining the identity or whereabouts of a potential D

Discovery for prospective Ds 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 persons 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 an affidavit stating facts on which applicants relies and specifying information, documents or things in respect of
which order is sought: s 6.2(7)(a) UCPR
A NOM must also be served on each person effected by proposed order: r 18.2 UCPR

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

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

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

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

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

Three situations where the Court may order discovery

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

Joining proceedings: Pt 6, UCPR

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

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

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

This was all reined in with Payne v Young

Joining of parties: rr 6.19-6.28

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

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

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

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

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

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

Retrospective joinders: rr 6.19(2) and 6.24 UCPR

Leave can be granted for parties to join other parties after proceedings have commenced: r 6.19(2)
The court may order parties to be joined to proceedings if they feel the party ought to be joined, or its 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
o A person is considered to have sufficient interest (i.e. standing) to commence representative proceedings against another person on behalf of other persons
if they have standing to commence proceedings on the persons own behalf against that other person: s 158(1) CPA
2. Claims arise out of the same or very similar circumstances: s 157(1)(b) CPA
3. Claims give rise to substantial common questions of law or fact: s 157(1)(c) CPA

Representative actions may be commenced against more than one D, irrespective of whether or not each person has a claim against
every D: s 158(2) CPA
This provision was specifically adopted to overcome the decision in Philip Morris v Nixon (2000)
31

Applications must follow form as outlined in PN SC Gen 17

Notice requirements also apply: ss 175-176 CPA
Notices must be accurate and not mislead group members: Courtney v Medtel (2001)
Any opt-out notice should be framed as not to cause unnecessary alarm or distress to intended recipients notices must be accurate but should be drafted with
sensitivity

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

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

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

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

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

Notice must be filed on each party and be accompanied with an affidavit: r 18.1 UCPR
Generally NOM must be filed (r 18.2(1) UCPR), but does not need to in the following situations (r 18.2(2) UCPR)
(a) that person consents to the making of the order, or

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, dont take into account the day order was made. If less than 5 days and a day or part of the day where registry is closed (e.g.
public holidays, weekends, etc), that day is excluded clear days

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

Where NOM has been correctly served, matter may be dealt with in either partys absence: r 18.7 UCPR
Directions as to a result of an interlocutory hearing is made under r 18.9 UCPR
N.B. in regards to hearsay evidence, contrary to s 59 Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is allowed in interlocutory
proceedings: s 75 Evidence Act
Interim preservation orders may be used before or after action is commenced
Injunctive relief: r 25.2(1)(c) UCPR
To do so, applicant must show a PF case and that balance of convenience favours the order being made: Apple v Samsung
(2011)
However, this case was appealed and the injunction was discharged

Federal Court has power to make such injunctions as the court has power, in relation to matters in which it has jurisdiction, to
make orders of such kinds that the Court thinks appropriate: s 23 Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)
Supreme Court has power to do so at any stage of proceedings where it is just or convenient to do so by inherent jurisdiction and
s 66(4) Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

33

District Court has limited power to grant temporary injunctions for a period not exceeding 14 days to enable Supreme Court
proceedings to be commenced: s 141 District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
For an interlocutory injunction to succeed, applicant needs to satisfy the court that he has a PF case, as well as satisfying the
court that the inconvenience or injury experienced by applicant outweighs the inconvenience or injury to the other party if
injuction were granted: Beecham v Bristol (1968)
PF case means that application can show a sufficient likelihood of success to justify the circumstances, rather than application must
show it is more probably than not that, at trial, they will succeed: ACB v ONeill (2006)
Interlocutory injunction to prevent ABC from screening a doco that implies that ONeill, convicted child murderer, was responsible for the disappearance of the Beaumont
children

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

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 courts power to grant Mareva injunctions

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

34

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 applicants 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 respondents absence

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

An application should comply with PN SC Gen 13

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

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

Is it worth suing the other party?

i.e. will they be able to pay up?

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

Four broad rationales for limitation periods: Brisbane South Regional Health v Taylor (1996) per HcMugh J
1)
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
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
Personal injury after 05/12/02

Work injury
Motor accident

Period
6 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 14(1)(a)
6 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 14(1)(b)
6 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 48
12 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 16
12 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 27(2)
1 year from date of publication: s 14B
3 years from date on which COA accrues to the P: s 18A(2)
3 years from date on which COA is discoverable by P; or
12 years running from time of act or omission alleged to have resulted in injury or death, whichever
period is first to expire: s 50C(1)(b)
3 years after date on which injury was received: s 151D Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
3 years after date of motor accident: s 109 Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 (NSW)

Limitation period can be suspended or postponed where the has been fraud or mistake: ss 55 and 56 Limitation Act 1969
(NSW)
Limitation period for minors
Generally, limitation periods for minors are suspended until majority attained: s 52 Limitation Act 1969
Minors are defined as under a disability under s 11(3) Limitation Act 1969 and a COA accrues when the disability no longer exists

However, limitation periods for personal injury matters may not always be suspended

If a personal injury COA occurred before 5/12/02, limitation period is suspended until minor attains majority as defined in s 11(3)
If a personal injury COA occurred after 5/12/02, minors with a capable parent or guardian are statute barred from having limitation periods suspended: s 50F(2)(a)
o Unless minor has been injured by close relatives in which case, limitation periods are suspended until minor reaches 25 years or age: s 50E
The 12 year long-stop limitation period accrues from the time minor turns 25 years of age

36

How to determine when COA accrues

Generally, a COA accrues when:
1) All the necessary facts occur, that is, all the elements to a COA exist
o This is event if a party is not aware of all the elements: see: Wardley v WA (1992)
2) There is a competent P who can sue and a competent D who can be sued: see: Thomson v Lord Clanmorris (1900)

If action is:
COA accrues from:
Based on fraud
Date of discoverability: s 55 Limitation Act 1969
From consequences of mistake
Date P first discovers mistake: s 56 Limitation Act 1969
Where P is under a disability
Date where disability no longer exists, i.e. limitation period is suspended for period during which disability exists:
s 52 Limitation Act 1969
Based on breach of contract
Date contract is breached
Based in tort
Date wrongful act is committed or loss or damage is suffered

What is the appropriate jurisdiction?

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

Jurisdiction has impact on how a case is treated

For example, DC has no jurisdiction on matters under the Corporations Act

Consider what the client wants

How do we know if the jurisdiction is the correct jurisdiction?

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

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

37

Types of jurisdiction
Original
Federal all matters arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation
Supreme Court anything which may be necessary to do justice

Appellate
High Court appeals from any judgements, degrees, orders and sentences of any federal court, any court exercising federal
jurisdiction or Supreme Court of any state
Federal and State Courts appellate powers governed by legislation
State Courts jurisdictional limit
Local Court Civil ($100k for general div and $10k for small claims) under Pt 3 and Criminal under Pt 4: Local Courts Act 2007 (NSW)
District Court Civil ($750k) under Pt 3 and Criminal under Pt 4: District Court Act 1973 (NSW)
Supreme Court Civil and Criminal (unlimited): Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

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

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

Under the Cross-vesting Acts, provisions which confer Federal jurisdiction on State courts are valid, but it is unconstitutional to
confer State jurisdiction on Federal Courts: Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999)
As part of the national corporations law scheme instigated after the HCAs ruling in NSW v Cth (1990), the states were required to legislate for the formation of
corporations. As a result of this, the states had to vest the Federal Court with state jurisdiction to allow Cth to have effective judicial control over corporations law the
court found that power may be conferred onto the federal court only by consistutional right (ss 75 and 76 Constutition) and that no other polity may confer jurisdiction
onto the courts this means that the states cannot confer onto Federal courts
38

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

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

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

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

39

Service generally
Effect service by either leaving a copy of document with person (UCPR, r 10.21(1)), or, where not possible by threat of violence, leave
it as near as practicable to that other person (UCPR, r 10.21(2))
Leaving a copy of document
Leaving a copy of document with person or, if the person does not accept the copy, by putting the copy down in the persons presence and should tell the person the
nature of the document (UCPR, r 10.21(1))

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

If rejected and disputing service, D has onus to prove evidence that document was rejected and sever did not describe: ANZ v Rostkier
Further, D cannot be fraudulently induced into the jurisdiction for the purpose of service: Baldry v Jackson
Where threat of violence
If, by violence or threat of violence, a person attempting service is prevented from approaching another person for the purpose of delivering a document to the other
person, the person attempting service may deliver the document to the other person by leaving it as near as practicable to that other person (UCPR, r 10.21(2))

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 persons address for service (UCPR, r 10.5(1)(b)(i))
ii. If the person is not an active party, to the persons 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 persons address for service (UCPR, r 10.5(1)(c)(i))
ii. If the person is not an active party, at the persons 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 companys 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 dont accept, leave it as
near as practicable to that other person and telling the person the nature of the document (UCPR, r 10.21)
Leaving a copy of document
Leaving a copy of document with person or, if the person does not accept the copy, by putting the copy down in the persons presence and should tell the person the
nature of the document (UCPR, r 10.21(1))

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

If rejected and disputing service, D has onus to prove evidence that document was rejected and sever did not describe: ANZ v Rostkier
Further, D cannot be fraudulently induced into the 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 dont accept it, by putting the copy down in the persons presence and
telling the person the nature of the document

By Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), there are several ways to effect service
Service of a process, order or document on a company is to be effected by leaving it at, or by sending it by post to, the companys
registered office (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(1))
A process, order or document may be served on a company by delivering a copy of it personally to a director of the company who
resides within Australia (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(2))

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

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 persons 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 companys
registered office (Service and Execution of Process Act, s 9(1))

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

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 partys attention: Syndicate Mortgage Solutions Pty Ltd v Khaled El-Sayed (2009)
Examples of attempts

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

Objection to service
Seeking order to set aside originating process: r 12.11(a) UCPR
Where D has sought to have the SOC set aside and has been rejected, D has 7 days to enter an appearance either by filing a notice of appearance or filing a defence: r
6.10(1)(a)(ii) CPA
44

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

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
a)
b)
c)
d)

Proceedings on a claim for relief in relation to a debt or other liquidated claim (UCPR, r 6.3(a))
Proceedings on a claim for relief in relation to a tort (UCPR, r 6.3(b))
Proceedings on a claim based on an allegation of fraud (UCPR, r 6.3(c))
Proceedings on a claim for damages for breach of duty and the damages consist of or include:
i. Damages in respect of the death of any person (UCPR, r 6.3(d)(i))
ii. Damages in respect of personal injuries to any person (UCPR, r 6.3(d)(ii))
iii. Damages in respect of damage to any property (UCPR, r 6.3(d)(iii))
e) Proceedings on a claim for relief in relation to a trust (UCPR, r 6.3(e))
f) Proceedings on a claim for possession of land (UCPR, r 6.3(f))

Information needed on originating process

a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)

The name of the court in which proceedings are to be commenced (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(a))
If relevant, the division in which the proceeding are intended to be heard (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(b))
The venue at which the proceedings are intended to be heard (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(c))
The title of the proceedings (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(d))
The nature of the process (summons or statement of claim) (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(e))
If the process is filed by a person who is neither the party nor the partys solicitor or solicitors agent, the capacity in which the person acts when filing the
document (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(f))
g) The partys address and the partys address for service (UCPR, r 4.2(1)(g))
46

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

Pleadings: Pt 14 UCPR
Form:
Pleadings to be divided into paragraphs 14.6

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

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 partys 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 Ds 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 wouldve been struck out even if it got through

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

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

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:
Ps preparation for trial must be well advanced before filing SOC: para 2.1
On serving SOC, P must also serve on D:
Proposed consent orders for preparation of case: para 3.1
Notification of the date and time of the pre-trial conference which will be provided on filing of the SOC: para 5.1

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

49

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

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

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

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 Ps claim or arise out of the same transaction it is merely
required to be within the same parties to the original claim and be a matter where court has jurisdiction: s 22(1) CPA
However, D can bring a counter claim against a person who is not a party to the proceedings if it is related or connected with the
subject of the existing proceedings: s 22(2) CPA
In this situation, the non-party becomes a cross-defendant and is bound by the judgement between P and D
51

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

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

Counter claims must be made in the same time limit for a party to file a defence: r 9.1 UCPR
For proceedings commencing as a SOC, this period is 28 days after service or such time the court directs: r 6.10(1)(a) UCPR
Defences to a counter claim must be made in the same manner as a SOC: r 9.4 UCPR
If a cross D does not file a defence, the decision as between parties to the counter claim, are binding: r 9.5 UCPR

Discontinuance, withdrawal, summary dismissal and setting aside of originating process: Pt 12 UCPR
P may do so in regards to all claims for relief or all claims for relieve in respect to a particular D by filing a notice of
discontinuance: r 12.1(1) UCPR
However, this requires consent of each active party (subs a), and with leave of the court (subs b)
Notice of discontinuance must have a certificate by solicitor saying that P is only discontinuing for themselves and for no
one else: subs 2(a)
However, if the notice is to represent more than P, there must be a notice from each party whose consent is required under subs
1 to the effect that the relevant party consents to the proceedings being discontinued, with leave of the court: subs 2(b)
In this instance, a notice of consent is required: subs 3

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 courts 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 persons address or, if not know, last known address with envelope marked with return address: r 12.8(5) UCPR

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

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

53

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

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

Summary judgements are to be sparingly employed: General Steel v Commissioner for Railways (1964)
A case must be very clear to justify the summary intervention of the court to prevent a party from submitting his case for
determination by the court: Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1948) per Dixon J
This is because P should not be prevented from litigating without good reason and D should be allowed to defend if an arguable case exists: s 91 CPA

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 its discretion to rule that a default judgement be set aside: r 36.16(2)(a) UCPR
D must explain the delay in filing a defence and satisfy the court that there is a meritable defence: Borowiak v Hobbs (2006). D
must also prove that there is no prejudice to the other side to be let back in
Car accident between P and D negligence of P P made claim to insurer met D sought to get damage costs to car to NRMA NRMA failed to respond to letter of
demand by D D obtained a default judgement application by P to set aside default judgement first instance dismissed second instance dismissed both had no
reason why there was a delay court found that the actions of NRMA show distain or indifference to time limits imposed by the rules for the filing of a defence the
judge has no concrete rule or mandatory formula to follow in use of a r 36.16 unfettered discretion just has to assess whether it was a reasonable delay NRMA did not
show this so default judgement was not set aside

55

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

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 Ds (D1 and D2) P wins against D2, P loses against D1
Bullock order is where P pays D1, but P can recover costs from D2
Sanderson order is where D2 pays P directly and pays D1 directly

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

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

57

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 applicants case
Whether the applicants impecuniosity was caused by the respondents conduct subject of the claim
Whether the respondents application for security is oppressive, in the sense that it is being used merely to deny an impecunious applicant
a right to litigate

Whether there are any persons standing behind the company who are likely to benefit from the litigation and who are willing to provide the
necessary security, and if yes
Whether persons standing behind the company have offered any personal undertaking to be liable for the costs and if so, the form of any
such undertaking
Security will only ordinarily be ordered against a party who is in substance a plaintiff, and an order ought not to be made against parties
who are defending themselves (e.g. directly resisting proceedings already brought or seeking to halt self-help procedures) and thus forced
to litigate.

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

Non-compliance with security orders may result in the court dismissing Ps proceedings: r 42.21 UCPRs

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

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

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

D
P

Not
accepted

Judgement is Entitlement to costs

[no less/less/ On the ordinary basis
more]
favourable
----
P is entitled to an order against D for Ps
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 Ps
costs up to the time which those costs are

On an indemnity basis
----

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

Not
accepted

Less

Not
accepted

More

to be assessed on an indemnity basis under the day after offer was made: r 42.14(2)(b)(i) UCPR
(b): r 42.14(2)(a) UCPR
- (where offer was made after trial) as from 11am on the
day after offer was made: r 42.14(2)(b)(ii) UCPR
P is entitled to an order against D for Ps
D is entitled to an order against P for Ds costs
costs up to the time which those costs are - (where offer was made before trial) as from beginning of
to be assessed on an indemnity basis under the day after offer was made: r 42.15(2)(b)(i) UCPR
(b): r 42.15(2)(a) UCPR
- (where offer was made after trial) as from 11am on the
day after offer was made: r 42.15(2)(b)(ii) UCPR
D is entitled to an order against P for Ds
D is entitled to an order against P for Ds costs
costs up to the time which those costs are - (where offer was made before trial) as from beginning of
to be assessed on an indemnity basis under the day after offer was made: r 42.15A(2)(b)(i) UCPR
(b): r 42.15A(2)(a) UCPR
- (where offer was made after trial) as from 11am on the
day after offer was made: r 42.15A(2)(b)(ii) UCPR

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

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

Offer can be inclusive or exclusive of costs

Why you would make it inclusive of costs? I dont know, but there are situations that it might arise

Making a Calderbank offer

Ds 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 Offerors circumstances in order to determine whether the offer was genuine: Maitland Hospital v Fisher
(No 2) (1992)
2.5% difference between Ds 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 wouldve 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 usually be served by incurring extra expense in assessing costs: per Basten JA

Non-conforming rule offers

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

Offer of compromise limited to liability: Vale v Eggins (No 2) (2007)

An offer may be made limited to liability

Offer in the alternative: Vale v Eggins (No 2)(2007)

P made two offers one was limited to liability. Other was of a money sum plus costs.

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

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

63

Evidence
Subpoenas
The power to issue a subpoena is set out in s 68 CPA. The rules in regards to subpoenas is set out in Pt 33 UCPR
Formal requirements: r 33.3 UCPR
The approved forms are Forms 25, 26 and 27

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 doesnt really exist any more: Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v The Peruvian Guano Co
(1882) per Brett LJ, followed by Mulley v Manifold (1959) at 345 per Menzies J

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 partys solicitor must provide an affidavit and certificate supporting a
list of documents, swearing on the completeness of the list: r 21.4 UCPR

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

66

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

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

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

This is different from particulars as these are answered on oath and seek admissions from other parties
This is also different from notice to admit facts (r 17.3 UCPR) where, if you serve notice to admit facts and other party does
not respond, it is assumed correct
Other party must reply within 14 days of service: r 17.3(2) UCPR
However, the other party may withdraw admission with leave of the court: r 17.3(3) UCPR

Interrogatories cannot be made without special reasons and may only be made by order from the court: r 22.1 UCPR
Special reasons are reasons out of the ordinary, extraordinary or exceptional: OMeara v Arianayagam (2006) per
Latham J
Where granted by the court, parties may object on the basis or relevance or vexatious or oppressiveness: r 22.2 UCPR
Also relevant is privileged information

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 widows claim scope of available evidence unclear error of principle in refusing interrogatories: Yamazaki v Mustaca [1999] NSWSC 1083;
BC9907282;
damages arising out of personal injury at school evidentiary difficulties without interrogatories order reasonably necessary for disposing fairly of the matter:
Boyle v Downs [1979] 1 NSWLR 192 at 2045;
medical negligence claim interrogatories relevant to diagnostic evaluation and professional expertise necessary: Chong v Nguyen [2005] NSWSC 588;
BC200507146 at [9][16];
medical negligence claim interrogatories relating to doctors knowledge and diagnostic reasoning: Keating v South East Sydney Illawarra Area Health Service
(NSWSC, Hall J, No 20232 of 2005, 7 July 2006, unreported).

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 jurys 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

Enforcement
Judgement must be entered before it can be enforced: s 133(1) CPA
A registrar must furnish a sealed copy of any judgement or order to anyone who applies for a copy: r 36.12 UCPR
The exception is any proceedings under the Adoption Act 2000 this may only delivered to P unless court orders otherwise: r
36.12(3) UCPR

An instalment order can be made where they have no assets: Pt 8 CPA, Pt 39 UCPR
Once complied with orders, must satisfy the court by filing a writ of execution
Application is under r 39.2 UCPR
Application must accompanied by an affidavit in support of application of writ of execution: r 39.3 UCPR

If cannot comply with orders, can apply for a garnishee order (i.e. take money out of your pay directly) a r 39.34 UCPR
application can be filed to do so
Application must accompanied by an affidavit in support of application of writ of execution: r 39.35 UCPR

In the SC or DC, a judgement debt may be enforced by a charging order: s 106(1)(c) CPA
A charging order charges a security interest in favour of the judgement creditor as far as it is necessary to satisfy the judgement:
s 126(2)(a) CPA
This provision also restrains charge from dealing with the security interest unless directed by the judgement creditor: s 126(2)(b)

72