Stimpson v Australian Traditional-Medicine Society Ltd [2019] NSWSC 979

Stimpson v Australian Traditional-Medicine Society Ltd [2019] NSWSC 979

The filed statement of claim was seriously defective and the proposed amended statement of claim suffered from the same problems, so the statement of claim was struck out and leave to file the amended pleading was refused. However, summary dismissal of the entire proceedings would be too peremptory because there might be a kernel of a viable claim and it would be harsh to shut the Court's door on an unrepresented litigant at that stage. A restricted referral to the Pro Bono Panel for advice and document drafting was appropriate, and no order for costs was made because each side had partial success and a costs order might effectively extinguish any possible claim.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Common Law Proceedings / Competing Motions: the Plaintiff Sought Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Referral for Pro Bono Assistance; the Defendants Sought Summary Dismissal Or, Alternatively, Strike Out of the Statement of Claim.
Outcome
Statement of claim struck out; leave to file the amended statement of claim refused; defendants' application for summary dismissal refused; plaintiff referred for limited pro bono legal assistance; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure'] ['pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'leave to Amend Statement of Claim' 'costs']

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

Common Law Proceedings / Competing Motions: the Plaintiff Sought Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Referral for Pro Bono Assistance; the Defendants Sought Summary Dismissal Or, Alternatively, Strike Out of the Statement of Claim.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out as seriously defective." 'Whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to file the proposed amended statement of claim.' 'Whether the proceedings should be summarily dismissed.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be referred for pro bono legal assistance under the UCPR.' 'Whether any order for costs should be made for the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The filed statement of claim was seriously defective and the proposed amended statement of claim suffered from the same problems, so the statement of claim was struck out and leave to file the amended pleading was refused. However, summary dismissal of the entire proceedings would be too peremptory because there might be a kernel of a viable claim and it would be harsh to shut the Court's door on an unrepresented litigant at that stage. A restricted referral to the Pro Bono Panel for advice and document drafting was appropriate, and no order for costs was made because each side had partial success and a costs order might effectively extinguish any possible claim.

Court Disposition

Statement of claim struck out; leave to file the amended statement of claim refused; defendants' application for summary dismissal refused; plaintiff referred for limited pro bono legal assistance; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The statement of claim filed on 27 November 2018 by the plaintiff is struck out.' 'The plaintiff is refused leave to file the amended statement of claim that is an annexure to his affidavit filed 3 May 2019.' 'The application of the two defendants to have the proceedings summarily dismissed is refused.' 'Pursuant...