Chahoud v Koleda (No 2)

In the matter of Chahoud v Koleda (No 2), the plaintiff sought to hold the defendant liable for negligence in a matter that had previously been dismissed. The plaintiff brought a motion to strike out the proceedings, arguing that the cause of action in negligence had already been dismissed and that there was nothing left in the proceedings. Alternatively, the plaintiff contended that the defendant's witness immunity applied. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff's motion to strike out the proceedings was valid. It had to consider whether the cause of action in negligence had been previously dismissed and whether there was anything left in the proceedings that could be pursued. Additionally, the court had to examine whether the defendant's witness immunity applied in this instance.

The court found that the cause of action in negligence had indeed been previously dismissed and that there was nothing left in the proceedings to pursue. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendant's witness immunity applied. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings and ordered that costs follow the event. The court made specific orders regarding the costs, detailing how they would be allocated between the parties.