Mervyn Thomas Mills v John Perras & Ors [2011] NSWSC 581

Mervyn Thomas Mills v John Perras & Ors [2011] NSWSC 581

Taking the plaintiff's claim at its highest, the summons and statement of claim, read together, disclosed no reasonable cause of action against any defendant. The pleadings did not identify any rational connection between the alleged contradictory evidence, alleged negligence, or alleged statutory breaches and the monetary relief sought, and the plaintiff's reliance on the Constitution Act 1902 and Supreme Court Act 1970 as creating duties to individual citizens was misconceived.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Applications by the Second and Third Defendants to Strike Out the Plaintiff's Pleadings and Dismiss the Proceedings
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
['no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'private Prosecution' 'deceit' 'negligence' 'statutory Duty']
['civil Procedure' 'pleadings' 'tort' 'constitutional Law'] ['no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'frivolous or Vexatious Proceedings' 'abuse of Process' 'private Prosecution' 'deceit' 'negligence' 'statutory Duty']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Applications by the Second and Third Defendants to Strike Out the Plaintiff's Pleadings and Dismiss the Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the summons and statement of claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the defendants' "Whether the plaintiff's pleadings should be struck out or the proceedings dismissed under rules 13.4 or 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005" 'Whether there was any rational connection between the conduct complained of and the monetary relief sought' 'Whether section 5 of the Constitution Act 1902 or the preamble to the Supreme Court Act 1970 imposed a statutory duty to individual citizens to achieve fairness and justice in a particular case']

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the plaintiff's claim at its highest, the summons and statement of claim, read together, disclosed no reasonable cause of action against any defendant. The pleadings did not identify any rational connection between the alleged contradictory evidence, alleged negligence, or alleged statutory breaches and the monetary relief sought, and the plaintiff's reliance on the Constitution Act 1902 and Supreme Court Act 1970 as creating duties to individual citizens was misconceived.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • ['The proceedings be dismissed as against each of the defendants.' 'The plaintiff pay the costs of the second and third defendants.']