Wang v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 386

Wang v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 386

The Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the proceedings were an abuse of process because the pleaded allegations were groundless, erroneous or contrary to determinations in earlier Court of Appeal proceedings, did not support any element of an intentional tort by the State, and had no...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Claiming Damages for Alleged Intentional Torts / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Heard With Plaintiffs' Notices of Motion
Outcome
Proceedings summarily dismissed; plaintiffs' Notices of Motion dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'strike Out' 'prior Proceedings']
['civil Procedure'] ['summary Dismissal' 'no Reasonable Cause of Action' 'abuse of Process' 'strike Out' 'prior Proceedings']

Source-derived case record

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 Proceedings Claiming Damages for Alleged Intentional Torts / Defendant's Notice of Motion for Summary Dismissal Heard With Plaintiffs' Notices of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Statement of Claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the State of New South Wales.' 'Whether the proceedings repeated matters already determined in earlier proceedings and therefore constituted an abuse of process.' "Whether the plaintiffs' Notices of Motion should be dismissed if the proceedings were summarily dismissed."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and the proceedings were an abuse of process because the pleaded allegations were groundless, erroneous or contrary to determinations in earlier Court of Appeal proceedings, did not support any element of an intentional tort by the State, and had no prospect of being repleaded into a viable claim.

Court Disposition

Proceedings summarily dismissed; plaintiffs' Notices of Motion dismissed; plaintiffs ordered to pay the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • ['Notices of Motion filed by the plaintiffs on 12 July 2012, and 7 August 2012 dismissed.' 'Statement of Claim filed 3 July 2012 dismissed.' "Plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs."]