Haigh v Department of Planning NSW [2022] NSWSC 1434

Haigh v Department of Planning NSW [2022] NSWSC 1434

The plaintiffs' claims for reflective loss are not maintainable as they merely reflect losses suffered by the company, and accordingly the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process. The only claim which may proceed is that of the second plaintiff for mental harm, as it is potentially separate and distinct from company loss, subject to pleading requirements.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Stephen Haigh; Second Plaintiff: Dimitrios Kikiras; First Defendant: Department of Planning NSW; Second Defendant: Sam Haddad; Third Defendant: State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 October 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedural Ruling / Strike Out Application, Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out (except mental harm claim); leave granted to second plaintiff to replead mental harm; costs reserved; matter stood over for directions hearing.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Reflective Loss, Statute of Limitations, Strike Out Pleadings, Summary Dismissal
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Reflective Loss Statute of Limitations Strike Out Pleadings Summary Dismissal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Haigh

First Plaintiff

Dimitrios Kikiras

Second Plaintiff

Department of Planning NSW

First Defendant

Sam Haddad

Second Defendant

State of New South Wales

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedural Ruling / Strike Out Application, Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings are an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff claims are statute barred

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' claims for reflective loss are not maintainable as they merely reflect losses suffered by the company, and accordingly the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and is an abuse of process. The only claim which may proceed is that of the second plaintiff for mental harm, as it is potentially separate and distinct from company loss, subject to pleading requirements.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out (except mental harm claim); leave granted to second plaintiff to replead mental harm; costs reserved; matter stood over for directions hearing.

Orders

  • The statement of claim filed 28 October 2020 is struck out pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.28.
  • The second plaintiff is granted leave to replead only so far as it relates to the claim of mental harm and psychiatric injury.