KITE v ICAC [2012] NSWSC 457
Leave to replead was granted as it was in the interests of justice, balanced against the long procedural history and inconvenience to the court, subject to strict terms including a self-executing order for dismissal with costs if the plaintiff failed to file and serve the amended statement of claim by the deadline.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Patrick Kite; Defendant: Independent Commission Against Corruption
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 04 May 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Amended Statement of Claim and Summary Dismissal Sought
- Outcome
- Leave granted to the plaintiff to replead subject to strict procedural conditions; adjournment granted on terms; self-executing dismissal ordered if deadline not met.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Dismissal, Amendment of Pleadings, Self Represented Litigant, Leave to Amend, Costs Thrown Away
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Patrick Kite
Plaintiff
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to File Amended Statement of Claim and Summary Dismissal Sought
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave should be granted to plaintiff to further amend statement of claim
- 2 Whether proceedings should be summarily dismissed under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to replead was granted as it was in the interests of justice, balanced against the long procedural history and inconvenience to the court, subject to strict terms including a self-executing order for dismissal with costs if the plaintiff failed to file and serve the amended statement of claim by the deadline.
Court Disposition
Leave granted to the plaintiff to replead subject to strict procedural conditions; adjournment granted on terms; self-executing dismissal ordered if deadline not met.
Orders
- Leave to the plaintiff to replead, file and serve a proposed further amended statement of claim on or before 1 June 2012.
- If the plaintiff does not serve a proposed further amended statement of claim pursuant to Order 1, the proceedings are dismissed with costs pursuant to rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, in which event Orders 4 and 5 are vacated.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment