Ferguson v Armgauge Pty Ltd & Ors [2006] QSC 409

State Reporting Bureau 'jj&DOSj QSC 409 Queensland Government Department of Justice and Attorney-General Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL . JURISDICTION JONES J REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau Date: 21 November, 2006 Claim No 27 of 2002 DARYL FERGUSON Plaintiff and ARMGAUGE PTY LTD (ACN 084 440 684) First Defendant and R C HARDER AND COMPANY Second Defendant And WG & ES CARLSEN BUILDERS PTY LTD (ACN 064 058 368) Third Defendant CAIRNS ..DATE 17/11/2006 JUDGMENT WARNING: The publication of information or details likely to lead to the identification of persons in some proceedings is a criminal offence. This is so particularly in relation to the identification of children who are involved in criminal proceedings or proceedings for their protection under the Child Protection Act 1999, and complainants in criminal sexual offences, but is not limited to those categories. You may wish to seek legal advice before giving others access to the details of any person named in these proceedings. 1 ith Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 2 -- 17112006 D.l T7/KSJ(CNS) M/T CNS1/2006 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is application pursuant to rule 189 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules made by the plaintiff seeking the withdrawal of a deemed admission that was made by not answering a notice to admit facts, delivered on the 21st of August 2003. The reason for not answering the notice to admit facts- is explained as an oversight by the plaintiff's solicitors. The principal solicitor who had the carriage of the matter was overseas when the document was served and its presence was not noticed on return and the time for responding to the notice passed before the true situation was known. The party who has most to gain from the admission was the second defendant and the second defendant has agreed to allow the deemed admission to be withdrawn in appreciation of the circumstances in which the oversight occurred. The other defendants have expressed, in correspondence, no interest in the outcome of the application. In those circumstances, I should exercise my discretion to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the deemed admission. I will make orders in terms of the consent order initialled by me and placed with the papers . 2 JUDGMENT -- 2 of 2 --