Mehajer v Seven West Media [2021] NSWDC 379

Mehajer v Seven West Media [2021] NSWDC 379

Leave to file the amended statement of claim was refused because the plaintiff failed to comply with the self-executing filing order and the proposed amended pleading remained fundamentally defective, including failure to attach transcripts, inadequate imputations, lack of downloading particulars, an apparently out-of-time matter, defective damages particulars and impermissible claims. The proceedings were struck out and dismissed because the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to comply with orders over fifteen months, gave no satisfactory explanation or basis to expect compliance in future, and his continued failure to plead properly amounted to deliberate dilatory conduct by a reluctant...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Plaintiff's application refused; proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['pleading Requirements' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'self Executing Orders' 'summary Dismissal' 'want of Prosecution' 'bankruptcy and Defamation Proceedings' 'costs']
['tort' 'defamation' 'civil Procedure'] ['pleading Requirements' 'amended Statement of Claim' 'self Executing Orders' 'summary Dismissal' 'want of Prosecution' 'bankruptcy and Defamation Proceedings' '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 Defamation Proceedings / Plaintiff's Application for Leave to File an Amended Statement of Claim and Defendant's Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be permitted to file and rely on an amended statement of claim after failing to comply with a self-executing order requiring filing by 1 July 2021.' "Whether the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim remained so defective that leave to file it should be refused." 'Whether the proceedings should be struck out and dismissed pursuant to UCPR r 12.7(1) for want of prosecution.' "Whether the plaintiff's delay and failure to plead properly constituted deliberate delay or abuse of process outweighing prejudice to the plaintiff from dismissal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to file the amended statement of claim was refused because the plaintiff failed to comply with the self-executing filing order and the proposed amended pleading remained fundamentally defective, including failure to attach transcripts, inadequate imputations, lack of downloading particulars, an apparently out-of-time matter, defective damages particulars and impermissible claims. The proceedings were struck out and dismissed because the plaintiff had repeatedly failed to comply with orders over fifteen months, gave no satisfactory explanation or basis to expect compliance in future, and his continued failure to plead properly amounted to deliberate dilatory conduct by a reluctant...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application refused; proceedings struck out and dismissed; plaintiff ordered to pay defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's application for leave to file an amended statement of claim refused." 'Pursuant to UCPR r 12.7(1), these proceedings are struck out and dismissed.' "Plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings."]