Are you facing the fact “I am being sued”? Are you a director facing the fact “I am being sued”? When assisting clients who are being sued, we consider and advise on a range of options and strategies and we work with our clients to achieve the best possible result for them in the most cost-effective manner.

In the case of an opponent’s poorly considered claim, there may be an opportunity to force an early end to the proceeding by applying to the court for summary judgment or to have the claim struck out.

A Real-life Scenario

Recently, one of our corporate clients and its director were being sued in relation to a solar power system installed by our clients at the plaintiff’s property.

The plaintiff had claimed that our clients’ sales representative told him back in early 2012 that if he connected a particular solar power system prior to 30 June 2013, he would be entitled to a $0.44 rebate on his power bill. It was not disputed that, at the time, this information was correct.

But it was not until April 2013 (more than a year later) that the plaintiff finally decided to ask our clients to install a solar power system. This they did on 24 May 2013. Following completion of the installation, the plaintiff paid our clients and was satisfied with the product and the installation.

However, the plaintiff claimed that about a year later in April 2014, his electrical supplier informed him that he was not entitled to receive the $0.44 rebate because documentation was not submitted by a cut-off date.

The plaintiff engaged solicitors and proceeded to sue our clients primarily on two grounds: firstly, that back in early 2012, our client’s representative had misrepresented the plaintiff’s entitlement to the $0.44 rebate; and secondly, that our client had been negligent in not submitting documentation on behalf of the plaintiff by the 30 June 2013 cut-off date.

What We Did

In preparing our client’s defence, we reviewed the relevant legislation. We identified an amendment that commenced on 6 July 2012, which stipulated that only customers who lodged a completed application to connect a qualifying generator prior to 10 July 2012 would be entitled to the $0.44 rebate.

Now, by the plaintiff’s own pleading, he acknowledged that he had not engaged our clients to carry out any work until April 2013! We argued that, because the plaintiff had failed to lodge a completed application prior to 10 July 2012, he became legally disentitled to the $0.44 rebate long before he asked our clients to install the solar power system.  Effectively, he was claiming damages against our clients for the loss of an entitlement that, by his own conduct, he had no legal entitlement to receive.

The defence we prepared for our clients denied liability primarily on this ground. On instructions from our client, we wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors offering to settle the case on the basis that it be discontinued in order to minimise further legal costs to our respective clients.  The plaintiff rejected this offer and aggressively sought to continue the proceeding and to have it set down for trial.

So What Happened? A Great Result

We advised our clients of their options and the associated risks, and we recommended applying to the court to have the matter dismissed or struck out. We were instructed to bring the application.

The result was that the court awarded our client judgment against the plaintiff in respect of the misrepresentation claim, and having found that the plaintiff’s negligence claim was completely deficient, the plaintiff was ordered to re-plead it. The court’s reasons for decision stated:

“The plaintiff needs to re-plead his negligence claim identifying the nature and scope of the defendants’ alleged duty of care by reference to the law governing recovery for pure economic loss in negligence and exactly how the defendants breached that duty. The basis for claiming loss at the rate of 44 cents per kilowatt up to 2028 also needs to be justified given that, as has been seen already, the government can, and has in the past changed the rate for policy reasons at will.”

In our view, the opposition’s claim is as good as dead. The result was a win for our clients and a significant and expensive blow to the plaintiff, who currently does not have any viable cause of action filed against our clients, and we would expect that to remain the case.

How We Can Help

Litigation can be tricky as our opponent just found out. Failure to properly prepare a claim can lead to an expensive and brutal end to a party’s claim.  If you find yourself or your business being sued, please call Quinn & Scattini Lawyers to book a consultation to discuss how we may be able to assist you.

Contact Us

Are you being sued? Get the best representation. Contact Quinn & Scattini Lawyers’ experienced litigation lawyers on 1800 999 529, email mail@rmold.newwebsite.live or submit an enquiry below.

We are available to meet with you at any of our local offices (Brisbane, Gold Coast, Beenleigh, Cleveland and Jimboomba) or by telephone or video-conference.

This article is for your information and interest only. It is not intended to be comprehensive, and it does not constitute and must not be relied on as legal advice. You must seek specific advice tailored to your circumstances.