Clark v Robards

The appeal in *Clark v Robards* concerned an application for summary dismissal of proceedings for want of due despatch. The appellant, Mr Clark, sought to appeal an order striking out his claims for damages. The respondents were Timothy Robards, Terrence Robards, and the State of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the considerable delay in the proceedings, attributed in part to the appellant's involvement in other proceedings and incarceration, should have been taken into account when considering the application for summary dismissal. The court also considered whether the appellant had been given a substantial opportunity to produce a properly pleaded claim and whether the order striking out his claims constituted an error. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), specifically rule 12.7 concerning the striking out of pleadings, was relevant to the determination.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant had been afforded substantial opportunities to rectify his pleadings and that the delay in prosecuting the proceedings was not adequately explained. The court noted that while difficulties flowing from incarceration could be relevant, they did not, in this instance, justify the prolonged delay and failure to prosecute. The court concluded that the primary judge had not erred in striking out the claims.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal of the respondents.