Craig v Silverbrook [2016] NSWSC 530

Craig v Silverbrook [2016] NSWSC 530

The plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants, discloses no reasonable cause of action, is prolix, and constitutes an abuse of process, particularly given the prior Settlement Agreement and the plaintiffs’ acknowledgment of the pleading’s defects. Leave to re-plead is refused as the Court is unconvinced amendment will cure these fatal defects or disclose a tenable cause of action.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Equity Application (strike Out and Amendment) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out, With Leave to Amend Sought)
Outcome
Statement of Claim struck out as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants; costs awarded to those defendants; leave to re-plead refused.
Legal Topics
['strike Out Application' 'leave to Amend' 'abuse of Process' 'res Judicata' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'settlement Agreement' 'remedies']
['civil Procedure' 'equity'] ['strike Out Application' 'leave to Amend' 'abuse of Process' 'res Judicata' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'settlement Agreement' 'remedies']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equity Application (strike Out and Amendment) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out, With Leave to Amend Sought)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action against the remaining Global defendants' 'Whether leave to re-plead should be granted to the plaintiffs' 'Whether any cause of action against the remaining Global defendants can be properly pleaded, particularly in light of past settlements and prior litigation']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' Statement of Claim, as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants, discloses no reasonable cause of action, is prolix, and constitutes an abuse of process, particularly given the prior Settlement Agreement and the plaintiffs’ acknowledgment of the pleading’s defects. Leave to re-plead is refused as the Court is unconvinced amendment will cure these fatal defects or disclose a tenable cause of action.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim struck out as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants; costs awarded to those defendants; leave to re-plead refused.

Orders

  • ['Statement of Claim struck out as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants' 'Plaintiffs to pay the costs of these defendants']