Sleeman v Tuloch Pty Ltd t/as Palms on Oxford [2013] NSWDC 43

Sleeman v Tuloch Pty Ltd t/as Palms on Oxford [2013] NSWDC 43

The defendants' application to have the entire proceedings struck out for want of prosecution was dismissed because, despite multiple failures to comply with procedural orders by the plaintiff's legal representatives, the overall conduct did not reach the threshold warranting summary dismissal; however, the plaintiff's abandonment of claims against the fourth and fifth defendants, and the failure to give prompt notice, justified an adverse costs order against the plaintiff for those defendants and the cost of the applications heard.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Interlocutory applications determined; proceedings against fourth and fifth defendants dismissed by consent; summary judgment application dismissed; timetable and costs orders made; matter to proceed to mediation.
Legal Topics
['defamation' 'case Management' 'summary Judgment' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'civil Procedure' 'costs']
['tort'] ['defamation' 'case Management' 'summary Judgment' 'dismissal for Want of Prosecution' 'civil Procedure' '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

Civil / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proceedings against the fourth and fifth defendants should be dismissed and with what costs consequences' "Whether the first to fifth defendants' application for summary judgment should be granted" 'Whether the proceedings should be struck out for want of prosecution due to repeated failures by the plaintiff to comply with case management orders']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' application to have the entire proceedings struck out for want of prosecution was dismissed because, despite multiple failures to comply with procedural orders by the plaintiff's legal representatives, the overall conduct did not reach the threshold warranting summary dismissal; however, the plaintiff's abandonment of claims against the fourth and fifth defendants, and the failure to give prompt notice, justified an adverse costs order against the plaintiff for those defendants and the cost of the applications heard.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications determined; proceedings against fourth and fifth defendants dismissed by consent; summary judgment application dismissed; timetable and costs orders made; matter to proceed to mediation.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings as against the fourth and fifth defendants are, by consent, dismissed.' "First to fifth defendants' application for summary judgment is dismissed." 'Plaintiff to file and serve a further amended statement of claim deleting all references to the fourth and fifth defendants by 4:00pm Monday 15 April...