Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2014] NSWSC 617

Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc v Liverpool City Council [2014] NSWSC 617

The replies filed by the plaintiffs raise new and independent claims, are non-responsive to the defences to which they purportedly reply, repeat allegations already in the amended statement of claim, are vague, unparticularised, and in part attempt to relitigate matters previously struck out. Consequently, each substantive paragraph of the replies is liable to be struck out for being unnecessary, embarrassing, or an abuse of process under UCPR r 14.28.

Parties
First Plaintiff: Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc; Second Plaintiff: Marella Harris; First Defendant: Liverpool City Council; Second Defendant: Malek Fahd Islamic School Ltd; Third Defendant: Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc; Fourth Defendant: State of New South Wales; Fifth Defendant: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Motion to Strike Out Replies
Outcome
Plaintiffs' replies struck out; plaintiffs to pay the costs of the fourth and fifth defendants' motions.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Pleadings, Replies to Defences, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Strike Out Pleadings Replies to Defences Abuse of Process

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoxton Park Residents Action Group Inc

First Plaintiff

Marella Harris

Second Plaintiff

Liverpool City Council

First Defendant

Malek Fahd Islamic School Ltd

Second Defendant

Australian Federation of Islamic Councils Inc

Third Defendant

State of New South Wales

Fourth Defendant

Commonwealth of Australia

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Procedural Motion to Strike Out Replies

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the replies filed by the plaintiffs to the defences should be struck out under UCPR r 14.28
  2. 2 Whether the replies are an abuse of process, unnecessary, or have a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay

Ratio Decidendi

The replies filed by the plaintiffs raise new and independent claims, are non-responsive to the defences to which they purportedly reply, repeat allegations already in the amended statement of claim, are vague, unparticularised, and in part attempt to relitigate matters previously struck out. Consequently, each substantive paragraph of the replies is liable to be struck out for being unnecessary, embarrassing, or an abuse of process under UCPR r 14.28.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' replies struck out; plaintiffs to pay the costs of the fourth and fifth defendants' motions.

Orders

  • Strike out the replies filed by the plaintiffs on 2 May 2014 and 5 May 2014.
  • The plaintiffs pay the costs of the fourth defendant's motion filed on 12 May 2014 and the fifth defendant's motion filed on 7 May 2014.