Johnston v ANZ Banking Group & Ors [2001] NSWSC 593

Johnston v ANZ Banking Group & Ors [2001] NSWSC 593

The Amended Statement of Claim did not comply with the rules of court, was confusing, imprecise and embarrassing in a pleading sense, raised false and/or irrelevant issues, and failed to plead all elements of the causes of action or the real questions to be determined. The first defendant discharged the onus for relief under Pt 15 r 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970, justifying striking out the parts of the pleading relating to it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application in Civil Proceedings Alleging Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process / First Defendant's Application to Strike Out Allegations Against It in the Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Parts of the Statement of Claim relating to the first defendant were struck out, with leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim.
Legal Topics
['strike Out' 'pleading Deficiencies' 'malicious Prosecution' 'abuse of Process' 'apprehended Violence Orders']
['civil Procedure' 'torts'] ['strike Out' 'pleading Deficiencies' 'malicious Prosecution' 'abuse of Process' 'apprehended Violence Orders']

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

Strike Out Application in Civil Proceedings Alleging Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process / First Defendant's Application to Strike Out Allegations Against It in the Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the allegations made against the first defendant in the Amended Statement of Claim should be struck out for pleading deficiencies.' 'Whether the pleading complied with the Supreme Court Rules 1970, including Pt 15 r 7.' 'Whether relief should be granted under Pt 15 r 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Statement of Claim did not comply with the rules of court, was confusing, imprecise and embarrassing in a pleading sense, raised false and/or irrelevant issues, and failed to plead all elements of the causes of action or the real questions to be determined. The first defendant discharged the onus for relief under Pt 15 r 26 of the Supreme Court Rules 1970, justifying striking out the parts of the pleading relating to it.

Court Disposition

Parts of the Statement of Claim relating to the first defendant were struck out, with leave to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim.

Orders

  • ['Those parts of the Statement of Claim that relate to the first defendant are struck out.' 'Leave is given to the plaintiff to file a Further Amended Statement of Claim.' 'Any such pleading is to be filed within 28 days.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the application.']