Anthony Albert Twining v Jacqueline Anne Curtis

The case involved Anthony Albert Twining, who was unrepresented, suing Jacqueline Anne Curtis. Twining sought to amend his statement of claim to include new causes of action in misfeasance in public office and in injurious falsehood. The dispute came before the court as an application for leave to amend the pleadings. Twining's initial statement of claim did not clearly articulate these new causes of action, and the court was required to determine whether the proposed amendments demonstrated a valid basis for the claims.

The court had to decide whether Twining's proposed further amended statement of claim sufficiently outlined the new causes of action. The court considered the adequacy of the pleadings in relation to the legal requirements for misfeasance in public office and injurious falsehood. Twining argued that his proposed amendments sufficiently demonstrated the elements of these torts. However, the court found that the proposed amendments did not clearly or adequately set out the necessary facts and legal arguments to support the new causes of action.

The court refused leave to file the draft further amended statement of claim, noting that it did not demonstrate a good cause of action. Despite this, the court provided Twining with an opportunity to redraft his pleadings within twenty-eight days. The court also dismissed the defendant's application for security for costs and stood over Twining's application until 22 October 2010 to allow for the redrafting of the statement of claim.