Seidler v Carroll & O’Dea [2013] NSWSC 338

Seidler v Carroll & O’Dea [2013] NSWSC 338

Leave to amend was refused because the draft amended statement of claim was confusing, prolix, incomprehensible, and embarrassing, failing to properly identify material facts, causes of action, or retainer relationships, and liable to be struck out under r 14.28(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

Parties
Plaintiff: Kate Seidler; Defendant: Carroll & O'Dea
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Amend Pleading / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Leave to amend pleading refused
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Embarrassing Pleadings, Self Represented Litigants, Leave to Amend
Practice & Procedure Pleadings Embarrassing Pleadings Self Represented Litigants Leave to Amend

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 4 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kate Seidler

Plaintiff

Carroll & O'Dea

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Amend Pleading / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed amended statement of claim is embarrassing and liable to be struck out
  2. 2 Principles to be applied to pleadings drafted by self-represented litigants
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to file the amended statement of claim

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend was refused because the draft amended statement of claim was confusing, prolix, incomprehensible, and embarrassing, failing to properly identify material facts, causes of action, or retainer relationships, and liable to be struck out under r 14.28(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend pleading refused

Orders

  • Leave to amend the statement of claim in the terms of MFI 1 is refused