Storey v Britton [2025] QSC 125

(a) it was not in the correct form (the correct form being UCPR Form 19);

(b) it did not contain the required statements set out in the UCPR Form 19;

(c) it did not provide the necessary information such as a description of the document or who made the document or in some instances the date of the document;

(d) documents were provided with no document name, description or date, and it did not contain a list of documents which are subject to a claim for privilege; and

(e) it did not comply with the document management plan.

• [6] The result was that on 17 April 2025 the solicitors for the Storeys sent Ms Britton a letter pursuant to rule 444 of the UCPR. The letter required a response by 25 April 2025. On 28 April 2025 Ms Britton responded saying that the rule 444 letter had gone to her junk mailbox. She said she would 'review' and respond as soon as possible. Ms Britton reminded the Storeys' solicitors that she was sending the other documents as soon as possible. These are, presumably, the 'other documents' she said on 20 March 2025 that she would send as soon as possible. Ms Britton complained about the Storeys' conduct and said she likely would be seeking a summary dismissal of the Storeys' application. She said the Storeys, or their solicitors, have clearly misled the court "in multiple places of your pleadings and in correspondence". No proper details were provided of those serious allegations. Ms Britton also sought possession of the property "forthwith".
• [7] There was then some unproductive correspondence, including to the court.
• [8] That was the state of play when the proceeding was reviewed on 15 May 2025. On that occasion the court ordered:

(a) on or before 16 May 2025, the Brittons will file and serve their application, materials and submissions in relation to their proposed strike-out application;

(b) on or before 23 May 2025, the Storeys will file and serve their material and submissions;

(c) the court's decision on the costs of the Storeys' application for indemnity costs was reserved.

• [9] On 19 May 2025, by consent, the time for compliance with order 1 was extended to 21 May 2025 and order 2 was extended to 28 May 2025.
• [10] Still there was no compliance. On 27 May 2025, Ms Britton sent to the court an email which enclosed an affidavit. Ms Britton has failed to comply with the requirement to file and serve, by 21 May 2024, her application, her affidavit and her submissions.[2]
• [11] Even now - on 28 May 2025 -[3] no such application or submissions have been filed and served. It is appropriate to direct a further review.
• [12] The outstanding issue, which I reserved, is the question of the costs of the Storey's application for disclosure.
• [13] The Storeys seek their costs of that application against Ms Britton on an indemnity basis. At the hearing on 15 May 2025 Ms Britton resisted that application, including on medical grounds. She did not support that resistance with any material but proposed to file and serve that material within a few days of the hearing on 15 May 2025. That material was not filed within the requisite time.[4]
• [14] The Storeys ought to have a full indemnity for their costs of the disclosure application. Disclosure was due to be completed in November 2024. Six months later it remains an issue. The order made in February 2025 has not been complied with. Even subsequent extensions were breached.
• [15] The parties have obligations under rule 5 of the UCPR to proceed with the case in an expeditious way. Ms Britton's progress has been some distance from meeting that obligation.
• [16] Ms Britton will be ordered to pay the costs of the disclosure application on an indemnity basis.

[2] An affidavit of Michelle Susan Britton dated 27 May 2025 was filed on 28 May 2025.

[3] I prepared these reasons on 28 May 2025.

[4] An affidavit of Michelle Susan Britton dated 27 May 2025 was filed on 28 May 2025.