Lee v Cho [2016] NSWDC 36

Lee v Cho [2016] NSWDC 36

The proceedings were dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim was grossly defective, largely time-barred, and did not identify the contents of the matters complained of; the defendant had promptly put the plaintiff on notice of the defects; the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's generous orders to serve a draft amended statement of claim and an extension of time motion; and the plaintiff still had no proposed amended pleading or sufficient evidence justifying further delay. In those circumstances, further indulgence was not warranted and summary dismissal was appropriate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['defective Defamation Pleading' 'publications Outside Limitation Period' 'rolled Up Imputations' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'summary Dismissal' 'extension of Time']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure' 'limitation of Actions'] ['defective Defamation Pleading' 'publications Outside Limitation Period' 'rolled Up Imputations' 'failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'summary Dismissal' 'extension of Time']

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

Civil Defamation Proceedings / Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's defamation proceedings should be dismissed summarily because the statement of claim failed to plead the matters complained of and pleaded one set of rolled-up imputations for an unspecified number of publications." 'Whether the plaintiff should receive a further adjournment to prepare an amended statement of claim and an application to extend time under s 14B Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).' "Whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with the orders made on 17 December 2015 justified dismissal of the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings were dismissed because the plaintiff's statement of claim was grossly defective, largely time-barred, and did not identify the contents of the matters complained of; the defendant had promptly put the plaintiff on notice of the defects; the plaintiff failed to comply with the court's generous orders to serve a draft amended statement of claim and an extension of time motion; and the plaintiff still had no proposed amended pleading or sufficient evidence justifying further delay. In those circumstances, further indulgence was not warranted and summary dismissal was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs payable by the plaintiff on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings be dismissed pursuant to rr 13.4(1)(b), 14.28(1)(a) and 14.28(1)(b) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and s 60 Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW).' "Plaintiff pay defendant's costs of the proceedings."]