Dunn v Jessup [1994] QSC 281

State Reporting Bureau 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 KIEFEL J No 56 of 1994 RONALD THOMAS WILLIAM DUNN and IAN DAVID JESSUP TOWNSVILLE .. DATE 19/08/94 ORDER 1 p::;v:S~D COPiES tSSU:ED ·:X,...:.ri: Rem,<t1ng 6·U~Geu Date 1~ i 8 1 er f? Plaintiff Defendant -- 1 of 4 -- 190894 HER HONOUR: I have before me this morning two applications. The first is the application by the presently named defendant, Ian David Jessup, to strike out the plaintiff's action on theI basis that it discloses no cause of action. The second application is made by the plaintiff himself, Mr Dunn, to add 10 over 50 other defendants to the same action. A statement of claim has been delivered in this action and I have heard from Mr Dunn about some basis for it. Paragraph 4 through to paragraph 8 of the statement of claim, it would 20 appear, have absolutely nothing to do with the complaints against the defendant named, Mr Jessup. The action therefore centres only on paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 cannot found themselves a cause of action. The claims, in qaneral terms, are said to be generally for harassment, fraud 30 and breach of duty concerning the defendant's appointment as a receiver and the relief sought is damages for being put out of business. This appears to·relate to the appointment of the defendant as receiver in late 1987 and the subsequent sale by the defendant in his .capacity as receiver of a quarry in which 40 the plaintiff had an interest. Paragraphs 1 and 2 concern the plaintiff lodging a caveat which was removed by order of this Court in February 1988. The only part then remaining i~ paragraph 3 of Mr Dunn's claim. It relates generally to a report made by the receiver to the Court, the defendant having so been a Court appointed receiver. There are instances where the courts attempt to ascertain just what it is that a party complains about and, in circumstances ORDER 2 -- 2 of 4 -- 190894 where they would not otherwise assist other parties, descend somewhat to assist litigants in person. Litigants appearing in person are becoming a much more regular part o£ the courts' day and I think it is right to•say that whilst the courts will be concerned to discover just what is the subject of the complaint, the courts will now exercise caution and restraint in descending to assist parties to make out or plead a case where they have not themselves disclosed it. There must be a limit to the courts' involvement in parties' actions. On the application made there is no factual basis pleaded which would disclose that there has been any duty owed by the receiver to the plaintiff breached by reference to the report or otherwise of sufficient facts by which the Court could infer that the action should remain on foot. I do not propose and I did not investigate the matter further with Mr Dunn to see if there was something that might be made out for the reasons I have indicated and because of the background history of this matter, as to which I was informed by a large number of the parties here today. It would seem to me, therefore, that the action ought be struck out. That in itself could dispose of the application to join the 50 or so other defendants. Even if that were not the case, a reference to the wide variety of defendants to be joined, who, in brief, seem to be anyone who has had anything to do with Mr Dunn over a long period of time, would place the Court in a position where it would not allow its process to be abused, for example to permit what I perceive to be a desire to harass many people against whom there is no cause of action and who ORDER 3 10 20 30 40 50 -- 3 of 4 -- 190894 have had little contact with the plaintiff. Further, there is no basis shown for the defendants to be joined to an action against the named defendant. Many of them are not connected with each other. The only thing that they appear to have in common is that they have come into contact in one capacity or another with Mr Dunn. In any event, the action itself must be struck out since it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The orders then that I will make are that on the application to strike out, that the plaintiff's action be dismissed and order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the action to be taxed. On the plaintiff's application to join the listed defendants, I order that the application be dismissed, and further order that the plaintiff pay each respondent who appeared costs of and incidental to the application to be taxed. It is not the function of the Court to tell people that they ought not bring actions, but I will say to Mr Dunn that he ought to consider his position very carefully if he contemplates bringing further actions to the Court. Give it careful consideration before that step is taken. ORDER 4 10 20 30 40 50 -- 4 of 4 --