Mohareb v Jankulovski [2014] NSWSC 451

Mohareb v Jankulovski [2014] NSWSC 451

Rothman J's orders, particularly the refusal to order that the plaintiff not have leave to replead and the direction that the plaintiff file and serve a further pleading, made it inherent that the defendants' application to strike out the proceedings for want of due despatch had not been acceded to. The second further amended statement of claim complied with Rothman J's order, and Harrison AsJ's judgment and orders did not make the plaintiff disentitled to maintain a claim for aggravated damages in paragraph 8.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out or Dismiss Proceedings for Want of Prosecution and to Challenge the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim
Outcome
Defendants' strike out/dismissal application was not acceded to; directions and costs orders were made.
Legal Topics
['strike Out' 'want of Prosecution' 'want of Due Despatch' 'defamation Pleadings' 'aggravated Damages' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'defamation'] ['strike Out' 'want of Prosecution' 'want of Due Despatch' 'defamation Pleadings' 'aggravated Damages' '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

Defamation Proceedings / Defendants' Notice of Motion to Strike Out or Dismiss Proceedings for Want of Prosecution and to Challenge the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the defendants' application to strike out or dismiss the proceedings for want of due despatch should proceed against the second further amended statement of claim." "Whether paragraph 8 of the second further amended statement of claim, pleading and particularising aggravated damages, was precluded by Harrison AsJ's orders of 27 June 2013." 'What procedural and costs orders should be made.']

Ratio Decidendi

Rothman J's orders, particularly the refusal to order that the plaintiff not have leave to replead and the direction that the plaintiff file and serve a further pleading, made it inherent that the defendants' application to strike out the proceedings for want of due despatch had not been acceded to. The second further amended statement of claim complied with Rothman J's order, and Harrison AsJ's judgment and orders did not make the plaintiff disentitled to maintain a claim for aggravated damages in paragraph 8.

Court Disposition

Defendants' strike out/dismissal application was not acceded to; directions and costs orders were made.

Orders

  • ['Order the defendants to file their defence to the second further amended statement of claim filed 3 April 2014 within 14 days.' 'Stand the proceedings into the Defamation List in June 2014 before McCallum J.' 'Order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the proceedings before Rothman J on 24 March 2014.' 'Make no...