Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] NSWCA 258 Hearing dates: 26 August 2011 Decision date: 26 August 2011 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1] [10] Whealy JA at [9] Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.] Catchwords: APPEAL - civil - application for leave to appeal against decision of primary judge striking out amended statement of claim and declining to grant leave to replead - application for leave to appeal refused - no issue of principle Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rita Cameron (Applicant) Qantas Airways Ltd (First Respondent) Stephen J Walker t/as Walker Legal (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant in person J Catsanos (First Respondent) D Priestley (Second Respondent) Solicitors: Applicant in person HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (First Respondent) Yeldham Price O'Brien Lusk (Second Respondent) File Number(s): CA 2010/1198941 Decision under appeal Citation: Cameron v Qantas Airways Ltd & Anor [2011] NSWSC 178 Date of Decision: 2011-02-25 00:00:00 Before: Latham J File Number(s): SC 2010/118941 Judgment 1MACFARLAN JA : This is an application by Ms Rita Cameron for leave to appeal against the decision dated 25 February 2011 of Latham J, sitting in the Common Law Division of this Court ([2011] NSWSC 178). By that decision, her Honour ordered that an Amended Statement of Claim filed by Ms Cameron seeking damages and other relief from the present respondents be struck out. Her Honour declined to grant leave to Ms Cameron to replead. 2The long history of these, and earlier related, proceedings is recounted in the judgment of Latham J and in the earlier judgments, including that of Schmidt J, dated 13 August 2010 ([2010] NSWSC 899) to which her Honour refers. It is sufficient for present purposes to note the following. 3On 8 March 1999 Ms Cameron was injured in the course of her employment with the first respondent. Ms Cameron subsequently brought proceedings in the District Court against the first respondent claiming damages. After eight days of hearing before McLoughlin DCJ the proceedings were settled on terms that included a judgment in favour of Ms Cameron in the sum of $940,000 less certain deductions, with the parties to pay their own costs. Ms Cameron was at that time represented by the present second respondent, a solicitor, and by a barrister. 4Ms Cameron subsequently filed notices of motion in the District Court seeking to have the settlement set aside. They were dismissed. She then filed in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court the Statement of Claim that commenced the present proceedings against the respondents. The respondents applied to have it struck out as embarrassing and disclosing no cause of action. Schmidt J accepted that that was an appropriate description of this Statement of Claim but granted Ms Cameron leave to amend. In doing so, her Honour clearly identified the deficiencies in the Statement of Claim. 5On 22 September 2010 Ms Cameron filed an Amended Statement of Claim. On the application of the respondents Latham J struck out that pleading and declined to give Ms Cameron leave to replead. In giving her reasons, her Honour said: "19 ... I am more than satisfied that the [amended] statement of claim is legally embarrassing, in the sense that it is unintelligible, ambiguous, vague and too general: Pethers v Minister for Agriculture [2010] NSWSC 805 at [22]. The identification, such as it is, of material factual allegations is so lacking in precision that neither of the defendants could have adequate notice of the real substance of the plaintiff's claim: Bott v Carter [2009] NSWSC 236 at [18]. ... 21 ... [I]n the circumstances of this case, the plaintiff has been given every reasonable indulgence by the courts, and by the defendants, and has persistently failed to remedy the substantial defects in the pleadings." 6The submissions that Ms Cameron made to this Court in support of her application for leave to appeal from that judgment did not identify any rational basis for a conclusion that Latham J was in any respect in error. As a result, an appeal made in accordance with a grant of leave to appeal would not have any significant prospects of success. The views that Latham J expressed concerning the Amended Statement of Claim and the indulgences afforded to Ms Cameron appear to me to have been entirely apposite. 7It is unnecessary in these circumstances to deal with the fact that the application for leave to appeal is long out of time and that the respondents assert that they have been prejudiced by Ms Cameron's delay. 8For these reasons I propose that Ms Cameron's application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs. 9WHEALY JA : I agree. 10MACFARLAN JA : The order of the Court is that Ms Cameron's application for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs. Exhibit A should be returned to Ms Cameron. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 31 August 2011