Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] Fca 157

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] Fca 157

The amended statement of claim was fundamentally prolix, failed to clearly or viably plead the elements of the various statutory and common law causes of action, pleaded many immaterial facts and matters of evidence rather than material facts, and in many respects claims were time-barred or could not as a matter of law be brought against the State. The entire pleading should be struck out, but as this is the first such application and given the seriousness of allegations, leave would be granted to replead (except as to certain statutory claims likely to be time-barred or unavailable against Crown).

Parties
First Applicant: Anthony Hamod; Second Applicant: Hamock Investments Pty Limited (ACN 005 758 412); First Respondent: State of New South Wales; Second Respondent: UBS Australia Limited (ACN 003 059 461)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim and Parts of Amended Application
Outcome
Amended Statement of Claim struck out; leave to further amend granted; ancillary orders as to time, liberty to apply, security for costs, and costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Pleading Requirements, Malicious Prosecution, False Imprisonment, Negligence, Trespass, Conspiracy, Trade Practices Act, Fair Trading Act, Limitation of Actions, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Torts Strike Out Applications Pleading Requirements Malicious Prosecution False Imprisonment Negligence Trespass +5 more

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Hamod

First Applicant

Hamock Investments Pty Limited (ACN 005 758 412)

Second Applicant

State of New South Wales

First Respondent

UBS Australia Limited (ACN 003 059 461)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim and Parts of Amended Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out in whole or part for prolixity and non-compliance with pleading rules
  2. 2 Whether the statutory and common law causes of action pleaded (including under Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW), conspiracy, malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, negligence, trespass) are adequately and viably pleaded
  3. 3 Whether claims under certain statutes can be brought against the State and/or time barred

Ratio Decidendi

The amended statement of claim was fundamentally prolix, failed to clearly or viably plead the elements of the various statutory and common law causes of action, pleaded many immaterial facts and matters of evidence rather than material facts, and in many respects claims were time-barred or could not as a matter of law be brought against the State. The entire pleading should be struck out, but as this is the first such application and given the seriousness of allegations, leave would be granted to replead (except as to certain statutory claims likely to be time-barred or unavailable against Crown).

Court Disposition

Amended Statement of Claim struck out; leave to further amend granted; ancillary orders as to time, liberty to apply, security for costs, and costs reserved.

Orders

  • The Amended Statement of Claim filed 27 October 2000 is struck-out.
  • Applicants have leave to replead by further amended statement of claim within forty-two days.