Carter v Slacks Creek Soccer Club & Ors [1994] QSC 178

, ~::.!<! ~.;t,~ S C. 94( I 7'8" ,~_. 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 MACKENZIE J No 912 of 1993 PETER JOHN CARTER and SLACKS CREEK SOCCER CLUB and MICHAEL ROBERT STONE and DAVID JAMES DAVIDSON and GARY ROBERT GLASSON BRISBANE .. DATE 10/06/94 JUDGMENT REVISED CCP!ES i82UED State t='epcn1nq Bureau Date I / 7 i ?.._ 'f Plaintiff First Defendant Second Defendant Third Defendant Fourth Defendant ~~-------------- \ 4th Floor. The LaJ¥ Cf!urts. Geor(!e Street. Brisbane.• 0. 40flfl TPIPnhnnP~ tn7l ??7 .1110n ,;,.M;~ano tll~ 1 ..,..,~ ~~.,.., -- 1 of 4 -- 100694 HIS HONOUR: In this matter the writ was issued on 18 June 1993. The incident which is said to have resulted in injuries to the plaintiff occurred on 24 June 1990. The writ was therefore issued, as it was entitled to be, at the end of the ordinary limitation period. The claim is one which is a little out of the ordinary. The plaintiff alleges that he was playing in a soccer match and was injured by a tackle from a member of the opposing team. Inquiries have been made about the circumstances of the tackle and the legality and it has been decided that action will not be brought against that person. However the action has been brought against the club for which the plaintiff was playing, the Slacks Creek Soccer Club Incorporated and three people who, I am told, are members associated with the running of that club at the material time. The first plaintiff is an incorporated association and the other three are private individuals. It is conceded that no steps at all have been taken to serve any of the defendants. However it is sought to have the writ extended on the basis that there are other good grounds for doing so. The matter has been put on the basis that the claim is one of some complexity and, in those circumstances, that and other matters to which I will refer would permit the writ to pe renewed. Other matters that were referred to were the difficulty in getting information from members and other people associated with the club. The attitude of those people I think might be summarised as being sympathetic but uncooperative. As I 2 JUDGMENT .1 10 20 . 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 4 -- 1 00694 understand it the action is based, as it is presently constituted, as an action for negligence, negligent mis-statement and mis-leading or deceptive conduct, on the proposition that certain representations were made about the availability or the extent of insurance that was available and that that was conduct of the kind which is alleged in the writ. There was some discussion during submissions of the possibility of an action in contract but that is not on the writ as it presently stands and other considerations will arise if it is sought to join that. The bottom line, it seems to me, is that the plaintiff knows what the claim is that he proposes to make and what it is based upon. It is based on, presumably, statements made to him which he knows of and would testify as to. Information about the insurance position has recently been obtained and it appears that there is a policy that may be relevant to the proceedings. As I have said previously, the case is not based on an inability to serve, it is based on the notion that the present state of information may be insufficient to enable the plaintiff to comply with a successful application by the defendants for further elaboration of the nature of the claim. It wa~ put on the basis that he faces the risk that the defendant will be less inclined to help and that, if pressed into substantiating matters he would, on the present state of the material, have some difficulty in doing so. 3 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 4 -- 100694 I note that a statement of claim has been drafted by counsel and it has recently become available as well. It is a case where one obviously has to have a great deal of sympathy for the plaintiff who, without stretching a point seems to, on the material, have had his life substantially ruined by the accident. However, it seems to me that it is not a case where there is any overwhelming reason not to serve those who have been identified at this point. If further inquiries are made and turn up a further course of action, that will involve the joinder of a disparate claim which will have to be sought to be made out of time and I am not concerned with the principles relating to that here. I think that the other side of the balance is that this matter is now four years old and I am told that the people involved as defendants have not been specifically made aware of the fact that a writ has been taken out and is now the best part of 12 months old. It seems to me that while I can understand that there might be a desirability to put off the action into the future in the hope that something may turn up, it is not a recognised principle in respect of renewal of writs, as I understand it, and in the circumstances, unfortunately, the application will be refused. 4 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 4 of 4 --