PP v DD [2021] NSWSC 1157

PP v DD [2021] NSWSC 1157

It is not an abuse of process for the defendant to deny acts giving rise to the cause of action in these civil proceedings solely because of a prior jury conviction; the jury verdict does not make express findings of fact conclusive in subsequent civil matters. The defendant's continued denial does not warrant striking out paragraphs 3 and 4. However, leave for the defendant to rely on three witness statements is refused as their late service and prior case management conduct would result in prejudice and injustice to the plaintiff.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Procedural Hearing Prior to Trial Commencement
Outcome
Plaintiff's application to strike out defence denied; defendant refused leave to rely on late witness statements.
Legal Topics
['case Management' 'pleadings' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'abuse of Process' 'evidentiary Statements']
['civil Procedure'] ['case Management' 'pleadings' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'abuse of Process' 'evidentiary Statements']

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

Civil / Procedural Hearing Prior to Trial Commencement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended defence should be struck out as an abuse of process due to previous criminal conviction' 'Whether the defendant should be granted leave to rely on three witness statements served shortly before trial']

Ratio Decidendi

It is not an abuse of process for the defendant to deny acts giving rise to the cause of action in these civil proceedings solely because of a prior jury conviction; the jury verdict does not make express findings of fact conclusive in subsequent civil matters. The defendant's continued denial does not warrant striking out paragraphs 3 and 4. However, leave for the defendant to rely on three witness statements is refused as their late service and prior case management conduct would result in prejudice and injustice to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application to strike out defence denied; defendant refused leave to rely on late witness statements.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's application for paragraphs 3 and 4 of the amended defence to be struck out is dismissed." 'Leave for the defendant to rely on three witness statements is refused.']