Paramasivam v University of New South Wales & ors. [2006] NSWSC 1189

Paramasivam v University of New South Wales & ors. [2006] NSWSC 1189

The plaintiff's statement of claim and the voluminous supporting documents were prolix, confusing, undigested and failed to articulate coherent causes of action, material facts or properly particularised damages. Given the extensive District Court history, repeated opportunities to replead, and the absence of any substantive improvement, the Supreme Court proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the proceedings rather than allow further amendment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Common Law Civil Proceedings Concerning Defendants' Notices of Motion to Dismiss or Strike Out the Statement of Claim / Ex Tempore Judgment on Three Notices of Motion
Outcome
Proceedings commenced by statement of claim filed on 7 February 2006 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'self Represented Litigants' 'defamation' 'negligence' 'malicious Prosecution' 'false Imprisonment' 'trespass to the Person' 'personal Injury']
['civil Procedure' 'tort Law'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'self Represented Litigants' 'defamation' 'negligence' 'malicious Prosecution' 'false Imprisonment' 'trespass to the Person' 'personal Injury']

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

Common Law Civil Proceedings Concerning Defendants' Notices of Motion to Dismiss or Strike Out the Statement of Claim / Ex Tempore Judgment on Three Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's statement of claim and supporting documents disclosed coherent causes of action and properly particularised damages." 'Whether the proceedings should be struck out, stayed or summarily dismissed under the Uniform (Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 and the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.' 'Whether the proceedings were vexatious or an abuse of process in light of the earlier District Court litigation and repeated defective pleadings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's statement of claim and the voluminous supporting documents were prolix, confusing, undigested and failed to articulate coherent causes of action, material facts or properly particularised damages. Given the extensive District Court history, repeated opportunities to replead, and the absence of any substantive improvement, the Supreme Court proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process. It was therefore appropriate to dismiss the proceedings rather than allow further amendment.

Court Disposition

Proceedings commenced by statement of claim filed on 7 February 2006 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The proceedings commenced in this Court by the statement of claim filed on 7 February 2006 be dismissed with costs.' 'The exhibits and the items marked for identification will remain until further order with the Court file.']