Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Health Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd & Ors

(2006) 33 WAR 1; [2006] WASC 161

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory applications
3. › Discouragement of disproportionate interlocutory disputes
4. › Whether time and expense proportionate to significance of dispute
5. › Rules of the Supreme Court, O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B, O 29, O 29A
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pre-hearing conferral
3. › Obligation of meaningful conferral under O 59 r 9
4. › Whether exchange of correspondence sufficient compliance
5. › Whether oral conferral required
6. › Risk of personal costs order against practitioners who refuse to confer orally
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Extension of time to apply to strike out
4. › Whether delay justified
5. › Whether interests of justice require extension
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court, O 20 r 19(3)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Pleadings
3. › Strike out
4. › Whether paragraphs disclose no reasonable cause of action
5. › Oppression claim under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 232

Quick Take

O 59 r 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court (WA) requires oral conferral between legal representatives with authority to resolve the interlocutory dispute, either by telephone or face to face; exchange of correspondence alone is insufficient. Practitioners who decline to confer orally without good cause risk personal costs orders. Interlocutory disputes will only be entertained where the time and expense of resolution is proportionate to the significance of the dispute to the just and effective resolution of the case.