Constantinidis v Tsolakis (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 809
The plaintiffs' first amended statement of claim failed to comply with prior orders by continuing to plead matters relating to the 2001 transaction, which were statute barred and previously disallowed. The plaintiffs had not turned their minds to replead as ordered, and were not afforded any further opportunity given the history of non-compliance; the statement was struck out, the proceedings dismissed, and costs awarded to the defendant.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Pleadings and Motions
- Outcome
- Plaintiffs' first amended statement of claim dismissed; plaintiffs' notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
- Legal Topics
- ['failure to Comply With Court Orders' 'strike Out of Pleadings' 'statute of Limitations']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Pleadings and Motions
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the first amended statement of claim complied with previous court orders' 'Whether claims were statute barred and improperly pleaded' 'Whether leave should be granted for further amendment of pleadings']
Ratio Decidendi
The plaintiffs' first amended statement of claim failed to comply with prior orders by continuing to plead matters relating to the 2001 transaction, which were statute barred and previously disallowed. The plaintiffs had not turned their minds to replead as ordered, and were not afforded any further opportunity given the history of non-compliance; the statement was struck out, the proceedings dismissed, and costs awarded to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Plaintiffs' first amended statement of claim dismissed; plaintiffs' notice of motion dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
Orders
- ["The plaintiffs' first amended statement of claim filed 20 September 2012 is dismissed." "The plaintiffs' notice of motion filed 6 March 2013 is dismissed." "The plaintiffs are to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. These costs are to include the defendant's notice of motion filed 12 December 2012."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment