Gerlach v Meares & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 835

Gerlach v Meares & 3 Ors [1999] NSWSC 835

Despite plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting claim, dismissing the action is not warranted as justice requires the proceedings be allowed to continue, given lack of demonstrated actual prejudice and plaintiff’s circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Plaintiff: Jeanne Gerlach; First Defendant: Allan Meares; Second Defendant: Western Suburbs Hospital; Third Defendant: Dow Corning Australia Pty Limited; Fourth Defendant: Dow Corning Wright
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Negligence / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution; Judgment
Outcome
Notice of motion to dismiss is dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant; matter transferred to District Court Sydney Registry.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay in Prosecution, Negligence, Breast Implant Litigation
Civil Procedure Tort Law Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay in Prosecution Negligence Breast Implant Litigation

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanne Gerlach

Plaintiff

Allan Meares

First Defendant

Western Suburbs Hospital

Second Defendant

Dow Corning Australia Pty Limited

Third Defendant

Dow Corning Wright

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligence / Application to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution; Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution under Part 33 r 6(2) of Supreme Court Rules
  2. 2 Whether delay by plaintiff was intentional, contumelious, or caused inordinate and inexcusable prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

Despite plaintiff’s delay in prosecuting claim, dismissing the action is not warranted as justice requires the proceedings be allowed to continue, given lack of demonstrated actual prejudice and plaintiff’s circumstances.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion to dismiss is dismissed; costs awarded to first defendant; matter transferred to District Court Sydney Registry.

Orders

  • The defendant's notice of motion filed 1 June 1999 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the first defendant's costs.