MANN v ECCOTT AND ORS [1998] NSWCA 137

MANN v ECCOTT AND ORS [1998] NSWCA 137

None of the proffered fresh evidence satisfied the criteria for admission. The claims for malicious falsehood were statute-barred and not saved by s55(1)(b) Limitation Act 1969, as the required degree of fraud was not established. Special damage, essential for the tort of malicious falsehood, was neither specifically pleaded nor proved, justifying striking out the claim. The proceedings were instituted for an improper purpose and amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, there was insufficient doubt about the decision to warrant granting leave to appeal.

Parties
Claimant: Christopher Mann; Fifth Opponent: Mr Rubinstein; First Opponent: Eccott; Opponents: Opponents two to six
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Malicious Falsehood, Special Damage, Strike Out, Statute of Limitations, Abuse of Process
Evidence Limitation of Actions Pleadings Abuse of Process Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Malicious Falsehood Special Damage Strike Out +1 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Mann

Claimant

Mr Rubinstein

Fifth Opponent

Eccott

First Opponent

Opponents two to six

Opponents

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Determination of Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh evidence should be admitted on the application for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the claim for malicious falsehood was statute-barred under s14 Limitation Act 1969
  3. 3 Whether the requisite degree of fraud under s55(1)(b) Limitation Act 1969 was established

Ratio Decidendi

None of the proffered fresh evidence satisfied the criteria for admission. The claims for malicious falsehood were statute-barred and not saved by s55(1)(b) Limitation Act 1969, as the required degree of fraud was not established. Special damage, essential for the tort of malicious falsehood, was neither specifically pleaded nor proved, justifying striking out the claim. The proceedings were instituted for an improper purpose and amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, there was insufficient doubt about the decision to warrant granting leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.