Kenneth Allan Donaldson v Commonwealth of Australia

KENNETH ALLAN DONALDSON
v
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
[2012] HCASL 51
S410/2011

On 20 July 2010, the applicant commenced proceedings in the Common Law Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales seeking damages from the Commonwealth for breach of contract, breach of a statutory duty of care, fraud and negligence. On 15 August 2010, the Commonwealth filed a defence.
On 18 November 2010, the Commonwealth filed a Notice of Motion seeking summary dismissal of the proceedings or that the Statement of Claim be struck out. On 23 November 2010, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking default judgment for unliquidated damages.
On 7 February 2011, Davies J heard both Notices of Motion. His Honour found that the applicant's motion failed as the Commonwealth's defence had been filed and served before default judgment had been obtained. His Honour further found no basis for the claims in contract and fraud. An adjournment was granted to allow the applicant to amend his Statement of Claim with respect to the purported negligence and breach of statutory duty grounds. On 20 April 2011, the applicant filed an Amended Statement of Claim.
Ultimately, after a hearing on 7 February 2011 and 13 May 2011, Davies J held that the pleading disclosed no causes of action against the Commonwealth and gave summary judgment for the Commonwealth, accompanied by comprehensive reasons.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. On 11 October 2011, the Court of Appeal (Giles JA and Sackville AJA) dismissed the application with costs on the grounds that the trial judge did not make any errors in his Honour's findings, reasoning or conclusions.
The applicant requires an extension of time in which to file his application for special leave to appeal. The draft notice of appeal and written case, each filed 15 December 2011, advance complaints concerning the alleged bias and prejudice of the Court of Appeal and the alleged failure of the Court to correctly apply provisions of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
The application to this Court does not advance any ground that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. We grant an extension of time but special leave to appeal is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kenneth Allan Donaldson v Commonwealth of Australia, the applicant pursued damages against the Commonwealth in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant alleged breach of contract, breach of a statutory duty of care, fraud, and negligence. The Commonwealth responded by filing a defence and subsequently sought summary dismissal or to have the Statement of Claim struck out, while the applicant attempted to secure default judgment. The trial judge ultimately found that the applicant's claims in contract and fraud were baseless and granted an adjournment for the applicant to amend his Statement of Claim concerning the negligence and statutory duty of care claims. After further proceedings, the trial judge issued summary judgment in favour of the Commonwealth, holding that the amended pleading did not establish any valid causes of action. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the applicant's appeal on the basis that the trial judge's findings and reasoning were correct.

The legal issues in this case centred around the validity of the applicant's claims against the Commonwealth and whether the trial judge correctly exercised his discretion in granting summary judgment. The Court of Appeal considered whether the trial judge made any errors in his findings, reasoning, or conclusions, and whether the applicant's allegations of bias and procedural errors were substantiated. The Court found no merit in the applicant's arguments and upheld the trial judge's decision.

This Court considered the application for special leave to appeal, focusing on whether any grounds existed that would justify overturning the Court of Appeal's decision. The Court determined that no such grounds were present, as the applicant's arguments did not challenge the substance of the Court of Appeal's reasoning or the application of legal principles. Consequently, the Court granted an extension of time for the applicant to file his application but denied special leave to appeal. The Court ordered the Registrar to prepare a formal dismissal order for the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established