Vasil v Boland [2022] NSWSC 1534

Vasil v Boland [2022] NSWSC 1534

The application for summary dismissal was dismissed because the amended pleading, while inadequately particularised, was not so hopeless as to warrant summary termination. There existed some evidentiary basis for the asserted trust and for the plaintiff's standing. However, the amended statement of claim was struck out because it failed to properly distinguish between losses claimed personally and as a beneficiary, and failed to clarify who the appropriate party to sue was, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her claim to address these deficiencies.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Equity – Applications List / Interlocutory Application: Motion for Summary Dismissal and Strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Application for summary dismissal dismissed; amended statement of claim struck out; leave to plaintiff to file further amended claim; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out Application' 'standing – Trusts' 'limitation Periods' 'company Representation' 'direct Briefing of Counsel' 'abuse of Process' 'costs for Self Represented Litigants']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'trusts'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out Application' 'standing – Trusts' 'limitation Periods' 'company Representation' 'direct Briefing of Counsel' 'abuse of Process' 'costs for Self Represented Litigants']

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 – Applications List / Interlocutory Application: Motion for Summary Dismissal and Strike Out of Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's amended statement of claim should be summarily dismissed" 'Whether the amended statement of claim should be struck out' 'Whether the plaintiff has standing to bring the proceedings based on trust over company shares' 'Whether repeated summary dismissal applications constitute abuse of process' 'Appropriate party to bring proceedings relating to trust property' 'Whether distinction between personal loss and loss as beneficiary of trust is sufficiently pleaded']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary dismissal was dismissed because the amended pleading, while inadequately particularised, was not so hopeless as to warrant summary termination. There existed some evidentiary basis for the asserted trust and for the plaintiff's standing. However, the amended statement of claim was struck out because it failed to properly distinguish between losses claimed personally and as a beneficiary, and failed to clarify who the appropriate party to sue was, but the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her claim to address these deficiencies.

Court Disposition

Application for summary dismissal dismissed; amended statement of claim struck out; leave to plaintiff to file further amended claim; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss application for summary judgment.' 'Order that the amended statement of claim be struck out.' 'Grant leave to Ms Vasil to file a further amended claim on or before 24 November 2022.' 'No order as to costs.']