Seidler v Carroll & O'Dea (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1172

Consistent failure by the plaintiff to comply with court orders for service of amended pleadings, coupled with the embarrassing nature of the original pleading and the absence of any cause of action properly pleaded, justifies dismissal of the proceedings for want of due despatch under r 12.7.

Parties: Plaintiff: Kathryn Seidler; Defendant: Carroll & O'Dea; Proposed Defendant: Robert Harrington
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 August 2013
Procedural Posture: Interlocutory Application / Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch
Outcome: proceedings dismissed for want of due despatch
Legal Topics: Failure to Comply With Court Orders, Striking Out Pleadings, Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch

Civil Procedure Failure to Comply With Court Orders Striking Out Pleadings Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch

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 4

Parties

Kathryn Seidler

Plaintiff

Carroll & O'Dea

Defendant

Robert Harrington

Proposed Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Dismissal for Want of Due Despatch

Legal Issues

1 whether proceedings should be dismissed for want of due despatch due to non-compliance with court orders
2 whether original pleading was embarrassing and liable to be struck out

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

proceedings dismissed for want of due despatch

Orders

Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the proceedings.
Plaintiff to pay Mr Harrington's costs of specific motions and hearings identified in the judgment.