Byrne v Turner Freeman Lawyers and Casselden [2025] NSWDC 5

Byrne v Turner Freeman Lawyers and Casselden [2025] NSWDC 5

The Statement of Claim was fundamentally defective: it failed to plead material facts necessary for the claims, articulated ambiguous and inconsistent losses, omitted critical background about the superseding Deed of Settlement, and did not reveal a reasonable cause of action. These failures left the defendants unable to know the case to meet and rendered the pleading an abuse of process. Consequently, the Statement of Claim was struck out and the proceedings dismissed under UCPR r 14.28 and r 13.4(1)(b).

Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Byrne; First Defendant: Turner Freeman Lawyers; Second Defendant: Adam Casselden SC
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Strike Out and Dismissal Application; Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Statement of Claim struck out and proceedings dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Striking Out, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Abuse of Process, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Pleadings Striking Out No Reasonable Cause of Action Abuse of Process Professional Negligence

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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Byrne

Plaintiff

Turner Freeman Lawyers

First Defendant

Adam Casselden SC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Strike Out and Dismissal Application; Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action
  2. 2 Whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out as embarrassing, vague or an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be dismissed under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 13.4(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was fundamentally defective: it failed to plead material facts necessary for the claims, articulated ambiguous and inconsistent losses, omitted critical background about the superseding Deed of Settlement, and did not reveal a reasonable cause of action. These failures left the defendants unable to know the case to meet and rendered the pleading an abuse of process. Consequently, the Statement of Claim was struck out and the proceedings dismissed under UCPR r 14.28 and r 13.4(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Statement of Claim struck out and proceedings dismissed.

Orders

  • Pursuant to UCPR r 14.28, the Statement of Claim filed on 31 May 2024 is struck out.
  • Pursuant to UCPR r 13.4(1)(b) these proceedings are dismissed.