Vassallo v Deitz [2024] NSWSC 246

Vassallo v Deitz [2024] NSWSC 246

Leave to file the proposed further amended summons was refused because the pleading still failed to comply with fundamental pleading requirements, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, remained convoluted, disorganised and ambiguous, and would cause embarrassment and delay rather than permit a fair trial. Having already been given an opportunity to amend, Mr Vassallo's proposed case was so unintelligible, groundless and untenable that the Court had a high degree of certainty it would fail if allowed to proceed, so the proceedings were dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Seeking Judicial Review of Local Court Decisions / Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Proposed Further Amended Summons; Defendants Opposed Leave and Sought Dismissal
Outcome
Leave refused and proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'self Represented Litigant' 'leave to File Amended Summons' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'summary Dismissal' 'judicial Review of Local Court Decisions' 'overriding Purpose']
['civil Procedure' 'judicial Review' 'criminal Procedure' 'environmental Law'] ['pleadings' 'self Represented Litigant' 'leave to File Amended Summons' 'reasonable Cause of Action' 'summary Dismissal' 'judicial Review of Local Court Decisions' 'overriding Purpose']

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 Proceedings Seeking Judicial Review of Local Court Decisions / Notice of Motion for Leave to File a Proposed Further Amended Summons; Defendants Opposed Leave and Sought Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Vassallo should be granted leave to file the proposed further amended summons.' 'Whether the proposed further amended summons complied with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and disclosed a reasonable cause of action.' 'Whether the proceedings should be dismissed because the claim was untenable and the pleading remained convoluted, disorganised and ambiguous.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the proposed further amended summons was refused because the pleading still failed to comply with fundamental pleading requirements, did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, remained convoluted, disorganised and ambiguous, and would cause embarrassment and delay rather than permit a fair trial. Having already been given an opportunity to amend, Mr Vassallo's proposed case was so unintelligible, groundless and untenable that the Court had a high degree of certainty it would fail if allowed to proceed, so the proceedings were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave refused and proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The leave Mr Vassallo seeks is refused and the proceedings are dismissed.' 'The parties are directed to confer about costs and, if there is any dispute, to approach the Court within 14 days with short written submissions about the competing orders sought, advising if they wish to be heard further. Otherwise, they...