Clarke, Dallas v State of New South Wales (No 3)

The application was brought by the defendant, the State of New South Wales, for the summary dismissal of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim. The plaintiff, Mr Clarke, had previously attempted to sue the State over an incident that occurred during his arrest and detention. The amended statement of claim was an attempt to revive a previously dismissed action. The application was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to consider whether the amended statement of claim should be summarily dismissed. The court also needed to determine if the amended statement of claim disclosed a cause of action that had not already been determined by a previous decision. The doctrine of res judicata was a significant issue, as it could prevent the court from considering the amended statement of claim if it included matters that had already been decided. The court needed to decide whether the amended statement of claim contained any new matters that were not previously considered.

The court found that the amended statement of claim largely repeated the claims made in the original statement of claim, which had already been dismissed. The court concluded that the amended statement of claim did not disclose a new cause of action and was substantially the same as the original statement of claim. The court held that the doctrine of res judicata applied, and the amended statement of claim was an attempt to re-litigate the same issues. The court found that the application for summary dismissal should be granted. The court dismissed the amended statement of claim with costs.

The court ordered that the amended statement of claim be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff. The court also made an order that the plaintiff pay the costs of the application for summary dismissal on an indemnity basis. The court held that the application for summary dismissal was well-founded and that the plaintiff's attempt to revive the dismissed action was without merit. The court's decision was final and binding, and the plaintiff had no further right of appeal.