Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219

Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219

The amendments sought by the plaintiff were refused because the pleaded facts, even if taken at their highest, were not, as a matter of law, objectively capable of sustaining a claim that the conduct (the montage and framed photograph) was conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the plaintiff under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim were struck out because they were embarrassing or logically incapable of being sustained, and the subpoenas were upheld as having a legitimate forensic purpose related to damages claimed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Motion to Amend Pleadings, Strike Out, Set Aside Subpoenas
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for leave to further amend her Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim dismissed; paragraphs 41E(ix) and 44(a) struck out; plaintiff's application to set aside subpoenas dismissed.
Legal Topics
['discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'subpoenas']
['human Rights' 'civil Procedure'] ['discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'pleadings' 'amendment of Pleadings' 'strike Out Applications' 'subpoenas']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Motion to Amend Pleadings, Strike Out, Set Aside Subpoenas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether plaintiff should be given leave to further amend her Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim' 'Whether certain paragraphs of the Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim should be struck out as being inconsistent with earlier leave or incapable of sustaining pleaded contentions' 'Whether subpoenas issued at the request of the defendants should be set aside']

Ratio Decidendi

The amendments sought by the plaintiff were refused because the pleaded facts, even if taken at their highest, were not, as a matter of law, objectively capable of sustaining a claim that the conduct (the montage and framed photograph) was conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the plaintiff under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). Certain paragraphs of the Statement of Claim were struck out because they were embarrassing or logically incapable of being sustained, and the subpoenas were upheld as having a legitimate forensic purpose related to damages claimed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for leave to further amend her Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim dismissed; paragraphs 41E(ix) and 44(a) struck out; plaintiff's application to set aside subpoenas dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 19 September 2011 dismissed." 'Paragraphs 41E(ix) and 44(a) of the Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim struck out.' "Plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed 4 October 2011 dismissed."]