Templar v Watt [2014] NSWSC 937

Templar v Watt [2014] NSWSC 937

Although the plaintiffs' delay and breaches of Court orders were unacceptable, dismissal at this stage would be too extreme. The Court accepted that the legal representatives had taken responsibility, that the plaintiffs themselves were not shown to be personally to blame, that the delay was not egregious, that dismissal could cause prejudice given the structure of the pleaded claims, and that there was no evidence of actual distress or specific prejudice to Dr Watt. The pleading issue could be addressed by allowing a corrected version, but the plaintiffs were required to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications in Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application to Dismiss Proceedings for Failures to Comply With Court Directions or Want of Due Despatch, and Issue Concerning Strike Out of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' application dismissed; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['failure to Comply With Court Directions' 'failure to Prosecute Proceedings With Due Despatch' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']
['defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['failure to Comply With Court Directions' 'failure to Prosecute Proceedings With Due Despatch' 'dismissal of Proceedings' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'costs of Interlocutory Application']

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 in Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Application to Dismiss Proceedings for Failures to Comply With Court Directions or Want of Due Despatch, and Issue Concerning Strike Out of the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiffs' failures to comply with Court directions justified dismissal of the proceedings under s 61 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005." 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed under 12.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for failure to prosecute with due despatch.' 'Whether the second further amended statement of claim should be struck out because it went further than amendments previously allowed or acknowledged.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiffs' delay and breaches of Court orders were unacceptable, dismissal at this stage would be too extreme. The Court accepted that the legal representatives had taken responsibility, that the plaintiffs themselves were not shown to be personally to blame, that the delay was not egregious, that dismissal could cause prejudice given the structure of the pleaded claims, and that there was no evidence of actual distress or specific prejudice to Dr Watt. The pleading issue could be addressed by allowing a corrected version, but the plaintiffs were required to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application dismissed; plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

Orders

  • ["The defendants' application be dismissed." "The plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the application."]