Application of Michael Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 1250

Application of Michael Bar-Mordecai [2013] NSWSC 1250

Leave was refused because the material filed did not disclose a prima facie basis for a professional negligence claim, there was no additional expert evidence of weight or substance capable of supporting the proposed claim, the proposed proceedings were vexatious having regard to Schmidt J's earlier reasons, and the proposed statement of claim would likely be struck out under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 / On the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application for Leave to Institute Proceedings' 'vexatious Litigant' 'medical Negligence Claim' 'prima Facie Basis' 'abuse of Process' 'strike Out']
['procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'vexatious Proceedings'] ['application for Leave to Institute Proceedings' 'vexatious Litigant' 'medical Negligence Claim' 'prima Facie Basis' 'abuse of Process' 'strike Out']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Commence Proceedings Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 / On the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to Michael Bar-Mordecai to commence proceedings for medical negligence against Dr XY.' 'Whether the proposed proceedings disclosed a prima facie basis sufficient to justify commencement.' 'Whether the proposed proceedings would be vexatious.' 'Whether the proposed statement of claim would be liable to be struck out under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the material filed did not disclose a prima facie basis for a professional negligence claim, there was no additional expert evidence of weight or substance capable of supporting the proposed claim, the proposed proceedings were vexatious having regard to Schmidt J's earlier reasons, and the proposed statement of claim would likely be struck out under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to commence proceedings pursuant to s 14 of the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008, contained in the Summons filed 8 March 2013, is dismissed.']