Gould v Choo & Anor [2002] NSWSC 183

Gould v Choo & Anor [2002] NSWSC 183

The adjournment was refused because the asserted District Court authority was ephemeral, not binding, and would not advance the pleading. The statement of claim was struck out because it did not disclose facts establishing a duty of care or breach for negligence, did not plead the necessary elements of defamation, and otherwise disclosed no recognised cause of action to which the defendants could reasonably be required to plead.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim; Application for Adjournment / Hearing of Notice of Motion and Adjournment Application
Outcome
Adjournment refused; statement of claim struck out; further proceedings stayed; ordinary costs ordered against the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
['adjournment' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause of Action' 'negligence Pleadings' 'defamation Pleadings' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'tort' 'bankruptcy'] ['adjournment' 'striking Out Pleadings' 'failure to Disclose Reasonable Cause of Action' 'negligence Pleadings' 'defamation Pleadings' '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

Notice of Motion to Strike Out Statement of Claim; Application for Adjournment / Hearing of Notice of Motion and Adjournment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's adjournment application should be granted to allow him to search for an asserted District Court authority concerning management negligence." 'Whether the statement of claim disclosed any cause of action recognised by law.' 'Whether the plaintiff should be prevented from filing further documents in the Supreme Court without leave.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered against the plaintiff.']

Ratio Decidendi

The adjournment was refused because the asserted District Court authority was ephemeral, not binding, and would not advance the pleading. The statement of claim was struck out because it did not disclose facts establishing a duty of care or breach for negligence, did not plead the necessary elements of defamation, and otherwise disclosed no recognised cause of action to which the defendants could reasonably be required to plead.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; statement of claim struck out; further proceedings stayed; ordinary costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Orders

  • ['The application for adjournment is refused.' 'The Statement of Claim be struck out.' 'The further proceedings in this action be stayed.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendants' costs of the motion."]