Summary Judgment – Not for late comers and never for complex issues
Litigators beware, a recent chambers judgment of the Supreme Court suggests that summary judgments under Order 16 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) will not be granted in complex claims. Further, applications may not be considered if filed out of time with significant delay and where the interests of justice are not “overwhelmingly” in favour of the applicant.
In Future Systems (Aust.) Pty Ltd v Nautilus Aviation Pty Ltd [2023] WASC 204, the Court was asked to decide on an application for summary judgment under Order 16, or alternatively, a strike out application of paragraphs in the plaintiff’s statement of claim.
In this case Hale Legal acted for the respondent, successfully having the application for summary judgment dismissed.
As expressed by Master Sanderson, an application for summary judgment under Order 16 differs from an application for summary judgment under Order 14 in three ways:
- Firstly, the plaintiff is bound to its statement of claim and cannot claim there are further material facts that it would plead to prevent a summary judgment;
- Secondly, that the facts pleaded in the statement of claim are accepted facts for the purpose of the Court deciding whether to order summary judgment; and
- Thirdly, there is a right of appeal under Order 16.
On the second, the Master summarised that “for the purposes of summary judgment, it must be assumed [the pleaded facts] will be proved” and that this could be characterised as “a manifestation of the rule that on a summary judgment application, the version of events most favourable to the party opposing summary judgment must be assumed.”
While the Master recognised that the right of appeal under Order 16 means an application “must be more detailed to provide an opportunity for review” he stressed that the application is not an opportunity to determine any issues of fact.
The central claim of the case concerned a claim for losses arising from the crash of a helicopter in far north Queensland where two employees of the plaintiff’s business were injured, and further losses were suffered by the plaintiff from the injury to its employees.
Adding to the complexity was discussion as to sections of the Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1959 (Cth) and Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1964 (Qld) that the defendant argued limited their liability.
Ultimately, the Master did not grant an extension of time to the applicant, ruling that the delay was too significant and that “the case is not so overwhelmingly in favour of the defendants that the interests of justice require an extension.”
Further, the Master made clear that he was not satisfied that summary judgment would be suitable under the circumstances even if an extension was given and that the issues raised were “too complex and too novel for the blunt instrument remedy of summary judgment to be appropriate.”
Overall, this case shows the importance of promptly dealing with any litigious issues.
Hale Legal are commercial litigation and general litigation experts and if you have any questions on a claim or your options, please call us on 08 6144 4470 or email us at admin@halelegal.com.au.