Rouvinetis v Grant [2001] NSWSC 513

Rouvinetis v Grant [2001] NSWSC 513

The application failed because the notice of appeal was out of time with no extension sought, each ground of appeal was misconceived or unsupported, and the plaintiff's statement of claim infringed Supreme Court Rules Pt 15 r 26 at least by tending to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay; given the defective pleading, delay, absence of an application to amend, and the history of the matter, leave to amend was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Master; Application to Reinstate Statement of Claim Struck Out in Malicious Prosecution Proceedings / Notice of Motion (notice of Appeal) From Master Malpass's Decision Striking Out the Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application by the plaintiff dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'prejudice, Embarrassment or Delay' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Amend' 'malicious Prosecution']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['strike Out of Pleadings' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'prejudice, Embarrassment or Delay' 'abuse of Process' 'leave to Amend' 'malicious Prosecution']

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

Appeal From Master; Application to Reinstate Statement of Claim Struck Out in Malicious Prosecution Proceedings / Notice of Motion (notice of Appeal) From Master Malpass's Decision Striking Out the Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's out-of-time appeal from the Master's decision should succeed despite no application for an extension of time." 'Whether the statement of claim was properly struck out under Supreme Court Rules Pt 15 r 26.' 'Whether alleged error of law, denial of natural justice, misconduct by the Master, or imbalance in representation provided a ground of appeal.' 'Whether leave to replead or amend should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the notice of appeal was out of time with no extension sought, each ground of appeal was misconceived or unsupported, and the plaintiff's statement of claim infringed Supreme Court Rules Pt 15 r 26 at least by tending to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay; given the defective pleading, delay, absence of an application to amend, and the history of the matter, leave to amend was refused.

Court Disposition

Application by the plaintiff dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs.']