Cunningham & Gallo v Lagois & Ors [2005] QSC 299

State Reporting Bureau QJ3OS} 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: 7 October, 2005 No 147 of 2005 DOUGLAS CUNNINGHAM and Applicants/Respondents ROSINA GALLO and WILLIAM ANTHONY LAGOIS, Respondents/Applicants JOHN EDWARD MAGOFFIN and CHRISTOPHER HENRY ROSE t/as LAGOIS MAGOFFIN ROSE SOLICITORS CAIRNS . .DATE 03/10/2005 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 4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 3 -- 03102005 D .1 T22/VJJ M/T CNS3/2005 (Jones J) HIS HONOUR: This is an application by the respondents to the action for the applicants ' claim to be dismissed on the grounds of non-compliance pursuant to rule 280 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. That non-compliance arose consequentially upon an order of this Court made on the 23rd of May 2005 which in terms reads as follows: 10 (1) The application continue as if started by claim. (2) The applicants file and serve a statement of claim, fully particularised in accordance with the rules, within 30 days 2P of the date of this order. The respondent file and serve a defence and counter claim, if any, within 28 days of the filing and service of the statement of claim unless within 21 days of the date of such filing and service an application is brought to strike out the claim in whole or in part. 30 Other orders were made concerning particulars and costs . When this application first came before me on the 1st of August 2005 I allowed further time ---- APPLICANT GALLO: On the 1st of August, your Honour. 40 HIS HONOUR: 1st of August 2005 I allowed further time for compliance with that order. There has been no compliance with the order, notwithstanding the indulgence granted on that 50 date. When the matter came before me today Ms Gallo, second applicant speaking on behalf of herself and the first named applicant, sought to re-argue the fact that the originating 2 JUDGMENT 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 03102005 D.l T22/VJJ M/T CNS3/2005 (Jones J) application of some 12 points is sufficient compliance with the rules in terms of identifying the claim. The fact that it is not sufficient compliance has been stated by the Court on two previous occasions and despite that the directions of the Court have been ignored. In those circumstances it seems to me no point in further extending time for the compliance with the Court's orders which have now twice been ignored. Ms Gallo wishes to raise other issues about documents filed in the Court registry not truly reflecting the documents which she wished to have filed. These matters are not excuses for not filing a Statement of Claim as has been directed by the Court. The respondents to the action should not be forced to continue to have the claims made against them hanging over their heads whilst the applicants deliberately ignore the Court orders . I am satisfied that there has been a breach of rule 280 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and on that basis the applicants' claim will be dismissed with costs . 3 JUDGMENT -- 3 of 3 --