Negrine v Abacus Finance Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1034

Negrine v Abacus Finance Pty Limited & 3 Ors [2006] NSWSC 1034

The Statement of Claim was fundamentally defective, failing to allege any reasonable cause of action against any defendant, and not meeting basic pleading standards. The deficiencies were incapable of being cured by amendment. There was no personal right of action demonstrated for the plaintiff against the defendants, and the case was an abuse of process. Summary dismissal and indemnity costs were warranted in the circumstances.

Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Negrine; 1st Defendant: Abacus Finance Pty Limited; 2nd Defendant: Taylor Woodings Chartered Accountants; 3rd Defendant: Abbott Tout Lawyers; 4th Defendant: Gray Perkins Lawyers
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Dismissal/striking Out
Outcome
Statement of Claim dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
Summary Dismissal, Pleading Requirements, Strike Out Applications, Jury Trial Entitlement, Indemnity Costs
Civil Procedure Summary Dismissal Pleading Requirements Strike Out Applications Jury Trial Entitlement Indemnity Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Negrine

Plaintiff

Abacus Finance Pty Limited

1st Defendant

Taylor Woodings Chartered Accountants

2nd Defendant

Abbott Tout Lawyers

3rd Defendant

Gray Perkins Lawyers

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Dismissal/striking Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's Statement of Claim discloses any reasonable cause of action against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim fails to comply with applicable pleading requirements under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial under s85 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was fundamentally defective, failing to allege any reasonable cause of action against any defendant, and not meeting basic pleading standards. The deficiencies were incapable of being cured by amendment. There was no personal right of action demonstrated for the plaintiff against the defendants, and the case was an abuse of process. Summary dismissal and indemnity costs were warranted in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim dismissed. Plaintiff to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders

  • Statement of Claim is dismissed.
  • Plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis.