Baini v Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division & Anor [2023] NSWSC 837

Baini v Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division & Anor [2023] NSWSC 837

The first defendant was an unincorporated association and therefore not capable of being sued, so the claim against it had to be struck out. The claims against the second defendant for breach of privacy and injurious falsehood did not disclose reasonable causes of action and were embarrassing because they failed to plead necessary material facts with sufficient specificity, including what information or statements were communicated, by whom, when, to whom, with what authority, with what malice, and how they caused loss. Because the proceedings were at an early stage, the plaintiff was given liberty to replead against the second defendant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim Under R 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Common Law Division Principal Judgment on Strike Out Application
Outcome
The Amended Statement of Claim against the first defendant was struck out. The whole of the pleadings in the Amended Statement of Claim against the second defendant were struck out with liberty to replead. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion, and the second...
Legal Topics
['pleadings' 'strike Out' 'unincorporated Associations' 'breach of Privacy' 'injurious Falsehood' 'embarrassing Pleadings']

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

Notice of Motion to Strike Out Amended Statement of Claim Under R 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Common Law Division Principal Judgment on Strike Out Application

  1. 1 ['Whether the Liberal Party of Australia NSW Division, as an unincorporated association, was capable of being sued in tort.' 'Whether the Amended Statement of Claim pleaded any reasonable cause of action for breach of privacy against the second defendant.' 'Whether the Amended Statement of Claim pleaded any reasonable cause of action for injurious falsehood against the second defendant.' 'Whether the pleadings were embarrassing because they were insufficiently specific, vague, or complicated by irrelevancies.' 'Whether the plaintiff should have liberty to replead the claims against the second defendant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant was an unincorporated association and therefore not capable of being sued, so the claim against it had to be struck out. The claims against the second defendant for breach of privacy and injurious falsehood did not disclose reasonable causes of action and were embarrassing because they failed to plead necessary material facts with sufficient specificity, including what information or statements were communicated, by whom, when, to whom, with what authority, with what malice, and how they caused loss. Because the proceedings were at an early stage, the plaintiff was given liberty to replead against the second defendant.

Court Disposition

The Amended Statement of Claim against the first defendant was struck out. The whole of the pleadings in the Amended Statement of Claim against the second defendant were struck out with liberty to replead. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the first defendant's costs of the Notice of Motion, and the second...

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Rule 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) ("UCPR"), the Amended Statement of Claim against the first defendant is struck out.' 'Pursuant to Rule 14.28 of the UCPR, the whole of the pleadings in the Amended Statement of Claim against the second defendant are struck out with liberty to...