Norman v Wall (No. 5)

1. [1]

   These proceedings were commenced in the Equity Division in June 2019. The dispute arises out of assertions by Ms Norman and Mr Berry that a scheme some years ago, advertised by a combination of individuals involving the purchase of a property and a kind of cooperative ownership of that property fell apart and losses were incurred.

2. [2]

   In that context, both Ms Norman and Mr Berry say that they deposited into the trust account of the defendant solicitor, Mr Wall, $120,000 and $80,000 respectively. They say that the money was never returned to them, never accounted for despite requests and that Mr Wall as a result, breached his fiduciary and other duties to them.

3. [3]

   The proceedings were dealt with twice in the Equity Division Property List by Darke J. The proceedings were then referred to the Common Law Division Professional Negligence List for further management, limited to a potential action against Mr Wall. The other initially named defendants were removed by consent.

4. [4]

   The encouragement to draft an appropriately circumscribed statement of claim did not result in a satisfactory iteration of the statement of claim despite three attempts.

5. [5]

   The proceedings were first listed before me on 21 February 2020 and I formed the view, as set out Norman v Wall [2020] NSWSC 129, that Ms Norman needed legal assistance. I referred her to the Pro Bono Scheme. I also provided a generous timetable within which to prepare, and file and serve an amended statement of claim, appropriately limited to professional negligence and/or breach of trust and/or breach of fiduciary duty.

6. [6]

   The matter returned to me on 27 July 2020. Contrary to the timetable that required any further amended statement of claim be served by mid May 2020, a proposed Further Amended Statement of Claim was served, over 2 months late, at 5:49pm on 26 July 2020.

7. [7]

   In Norman v Wall (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 997, I set out my reasons for refusing leave to file and rely upon that document. I also made an order of the Court’s own motion, pursuant to r 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”), dismissing the proceedings for want of due despatch given the one year delay and the fact that the fourth iteration was no closer to a pleading that was appropriate.

8. [8]

   When dealing with another aspect of the proceedings, I reflected on the fact that the plaintiffs had still not had the benefit of legal representation and that before dismissing the proceedings generally, I ought to consider a middle ground, that is, whether the vice of the pleading as drafted could be dealt with by striking out those parts of the statement of claim that were extraneous to the causes of action available, and granting leave for an amended statement of claim to be filed, strictly limited to a case against Wrothwell Wall only in professional negligence, and/or breach of trust and/or breach of fiduciary duty.

9. [9]

   Rule 14.28 of the UCPR provides for this:

10. [10]

    I have set aside the dismissal order for the reasons set out in Norman v Wall (No. 3) [2020] NSWSC 998 and heard submissions from counsel for the defendant, Mr Raftery, as to first, whether I should allow the claim to proceed with a modified version of the statement of claim, second, what parts of the proposed amended statement of claim ought to be struck out pursuant to r 14.28 and the extent to which the defendant is able to plead a response to those remaining pleadings of the case confined to professional negligence and/or breach of trust and/or breach of fiduciary duty.

11. [11]

    For the reasons that follow I concluded that it is consistent with the interests of justice to apply r 14.28 despite the absence of a formal application by the plaintiffs. I note that they still do not have legal representation and cannot be expected to know or understand the availability of this rule. I consider that to proceed this way is consistent with the obligations of the Court to foster timely and cost effective resolution of the dispute, and to facilitate the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute in the proceedings.

The case available to the plaintiffs

1. [12]

   There are within the prolix current draft Amended Statement of Claim a series of material facts that arguably can form an adequate basis for the case sought to be made.

2. [13]

   As noted at [10]-[13] of Norman v Wall (No. 3) [2020] NSWSC 998, these material facts, or something like them, were set out in each of the three previous iterations of the statement of claim.

3. [14]

   There is no doubt in my mind that from the beginning, Ms Norman and Mr Berry claimed that Mr Wall had mis-deployed or misused and not accounted for the large sums of money that they had deposited into his trust account.

4. [15]

   I acknowledge that there are large tracts of material in the current iteration that have no relevance at all to such a case. The plaintiffs were encouraged to remove that material by Darke J on two occasions in 2019 and by me in February 2020. Either the encouragement was not heeded or, more likely, in my view, not fully understood.

5. [16]

   Oral submissions were provided by Mr Raftery at the request of the Court to identify specific objections to individual paragraphs of the proposed statement of claim. General submissions were also made regarding whether and to what extent I should proceed this way.

6. [17]

   Mr Raftery’s primary position was that the case was not sufficiently articulated in the draft, and the nature and content of the duty of care claimed to be owed by Mr Wall to Ms Norman and Mr Berry was not properly identified. He submitted that it remains unclear whether the plaintiffs were asserting that Mr Wall had been retained by them as their solicitor. He submitted that this failure was fatal, and even if it was not, the pleadings were too diffuse, confused and non-specific to allow the case to proceed.

7. [18]

   These are reasonable submissions to make and I have carefully considered them.

8. [19]

   It seems to me that the nature of the legal relationship and therefore the nature and content of the duty of care is a matter for legal debate. The arguable parameters of the duty of care can be sufficiently identified by the asserted material facts. Certainly the elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust are sufficiently identified by the facts asserted regarding the payment to the defendant of the identified large sums of money for deposit into his trust account.

9. [20]

   Mr Raftery referred me to the very instructive decision Expense Reduction Analysts Group Pty Ltd v Armstrong Strategic Management and Marketing Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 303; [2013] HCA 46. In that case the High Court considered (in the context of dealing with a dispute about discovery) the role of case management, emphasising the fact that the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) may “require a more robust and proactive approach” on the part of the Court and emphasising the primacy of the role of the dictates of justice:

10. [21]

    Mr Raftery argued in effect that a “robust and proactive approach” required the Court to dismiss the proceedings and not to undergo a striking out exercise.

11. [22]

    Reliance was also placed on the comments of the Court of Appeal in Dickens v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 222 (“Dickens”) at [8]-[12], where the Court set out Adamson J’s reasoning for dismissing proceedings on the defendant’s application in a case where r 14.28 had already been deployed, and a chance already given to the self-represented plaintiff to re-plead his case.

12. [23]

    Her Honour concluded in that case that there was not any significant prospect that the plaintiff would be able to produce “a better version of the current pleading” if given the opportunity to do so:

13. [24]

    I completely agree with her Honour’s approach as well as the Victorian Court of Appeal’s observations which her Honour cites regarding the position of a self-represented litigant and the potential for there to be abuse of the processes of the Court. Here however there is, and continues to be, in each iteration of the statement of claim, material facts that could ground a potential case against Mr Wall. Those material facts are “severable” from the other irrelevant material which occupies most of the statements of claim provided so far.

14. [25]

    As pointed out by the Court of Appeal at [13] in Dickens, whether to allow a further attempt is a discretionary decision. The attempts by the plaintiffs to amend their pleading have been late, misguided and unfocussed. They lost the potential benefit of a referral to the Pro Bono Scheme by claiming in June 2020 that the proceedings would be transferred to the High Court.

15. [26]

    In my view, however, the dictates of justice require one last chance.

16. [27]

    I grant leave to the plaintiffs to file and serve a further amended statement of claim, limited to a case in negligence, and/or breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of trust against Mr Wall.

17. [28]

    If a statement of claim in acceptable rule compliant form is not filed and served by 5:00pm on 28 August 2020, the claim is dismissed, with costs.

18. [29]

    If proceedings are not automatically dismissed, as a result of the above order, I will list the matter before me at 9:30am on Thursday 1 September 2020 at which time I will set a timetable for the ongoing management of the matter and/or to hear any application the defendant wishes to make.

ORDERS

1. [30]

   I make orders as follows:

   1. (1)

      The plaintiffs have leave to file a further amended statement of claim limited to a case in professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust against Wrothwell Wall, that FASOC to be filed and served by 5:00pm on 28 August 2020.

   2. (2)

      If no FASOC is filed and served by the time specified in order 1, the proceedings are dismissed with the plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

   3. (3)

      If not dismissed, the matter is listed before Lonergan J on Thursday 1 September 2020 at 9:30am with a view to setting a timetable for the further conduct of the proceedings and/or for the hearing of any application by the defendant.

   4. (4)

      I reserve the question of costs should the FASOC be filed in time.