Qld Bar Exam - Practice and Procedure Questions With 100% Correct Answers!!

Jurisdiction - District Court: Monetary Limit of $750,000 ($150,000-$750,000) + matters it can hear. Magistrates Court: Monetary Limit of $150,000 District Court Act 1967 (Qld) s68 Magistrates Court Act 1921 (Qld), ss 2 and 4 (Prescribed Limit) Practice Direction 1 of 2023 - Commercial List for efficient commercial litigation - requirements? r250 UCPR - r250 Inspection, detention, custody and preservation of property Practice Direction 1 of 2007 - "Freezing Orders" (also known as "Mareva Orders" or "Asset Preservation Orders") What is the significance and function of practice directions? - Practice directions are procedural guidelines issued by judges in the Courts. The directions are designed to complement existing legislation, rules and regulations and may refer to issues including the use of the court precinct, appearances by practitioners and parties, and case management. Practice Direction 2 of 2007 - "Search Orders" (also known as "Anton Piller Orders") Practice Direction No. 11 of 2012 - "Supervised Case List" Purpose: Supervise cases for maximum utilisation of time allocated to hearings on cases, they are managed/prepared properly and costs commensurate to a just hearing. Matter placed on list where trial estimate is more than 5 days.What is the supervised case list? - A list assigned to a supervising judge, where parties are required to attend regular reviews and confer regarding directions, management, an attempt at ADR and trial preparation. What is the commercial list? - Vaughan v Bonjiorno [2007] NSWSC 1398 - Dealing with a interlocutory injunction (a freezing order) where Court held there must be a prima facie case, meaning of 'prima facie' and evidence of the prima facie case. Prima facie does not mean a better than 50% chance of success. Court needs to consider whether the evidence put forward in the application is admissible at trial in its current form. Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Limited [2000] QCA 178 - 12 Factors for leave to continue after delay or dismissal for want of prosecution: 1. How long ago events in statement of claim occurred 2. How long ago litigation commenced or causes of action added 3. What prospects plaintiff has of success in action 4. Whether or not disobedience of court orders or directions 5. Whether or not litigation categorized by period of delay in between taking steps 6. Whether delay attributable to P, D or both 7. Whether impecuniosity of P has been responsible for delay in litigation, and whether or not D responsible for P's impecuniosity 8. Could litigation be concluded by striking out P's claim 9. How far litigation has progressed 10. Whether or not delay caused by P's lawyers 11. Whether explanation for delay 12. Whether delay resulted in prejudice to D leading to inability to conduct fair trial AON Risk Services v ANU [2009] HCA 2007 - Goes to effect of amendments, potential for prejudice and case management principles.A party has no 'right' to amendment in ALL circumstances. Amendments are not meant to start new claims (unless rising from substantially the same facts), especially if brought during a time set for trial. Discretion takes into account whether there is prejudice to other party. + more key rules Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd v QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd [2008] QSC 302* - Requirement for a direct explanation in denials/non-admissions per r 166 UCPR. Requirements that a party provide a direct explanation fulfills two important functions (the rationale): 1) compels the responding party to expose, at an early stage of the proceeding, its rationale for a joinder of issue on a particular issue. 2) It compels responding party to formulate that rationale and ask "why am I denying that fact?" Shaw v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2016] QCA 275 - Discretion for summary judgment under r 292 requires court to be satisfied in both matters in (a) and (b). Party must not be deprived of an opportunity of a fair trial, under the guise of achieving expeditious finality. Words "no real prospect of succeeding" directs court to see where there is a realistic instead of a fanciful prospect of success. Spencer v Commonwealth [2010] HCA 28 - Application for summary judgment in Federal court, s 31A Federal Court Act. Cf as to Shaw v DCT. s 31A "no reasonable prospect of success" (cf QLD, real prospect vs reasonable in Cth).A case may have "no reasonable prospect" of success even though it is not hopeless or bound to fail. A discretion not be exercised lightly, the enquiry is whether there is a reasonable prospect of success NOT an enquiry that it would fail or is doomed to fail. Wilsons Ceramics Pty Ltd v Pantaenius Australia Pty Ltd [2021] QDC 74 - Dealing with r 250 UCPR, inspection of a boat, and going onto site and carrying out unnecessary inspections (drilling holes into hull); infringes on proprietary rights and whether it is a pre-requisite that the inspection be "necessary"