Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales (No. 2)
Case
•
[2019] NSWDC 531
•15 August 2019
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales (No. 2) [2019] NSWDC 531
[2019] NSWDC 531
15 August 2019
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales (No. 2). The plaintiff, Clarke, sought to sue the defendant, the Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales, for defamation. The matter was before the court on an application by the defendant to strike out the plaintiff’s reply, a document which exceeded 100 pages and did not address the defences pleaded by the defendant. This was the plaintiff’s third attempt to file a reply, having had two previous attempts struck out by the court.
The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff’s reply should be struck out due to its excessive length, failure to address the defences pleaded by the defendant, and the fact that the plaintiff was acting as a litigant in person. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the reply, and if so, what conditions should be attached to such an order.
The court found that the plaintiff’s reply was excessive and did not address the defences pleaded by the defendant. The court noted that the plaintiff was a litigant in person and had been warned on multiple occasions about the need to comply with the court’s orders and directions. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct warranted the striking out of the reply. However, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the reply, subject to a number of conditions, including a restriction on the inspection or further publication of certain material.
The court ordered that the plaintiff’s reply filed on 18 July 2019 be struck out and that the document relied upon be the “Plaintiff’s written submissions” filed on 8 August 2019. The court also ordered that the plaintiff’s reply dated 8 August 2019 be struck out with leave to amend by 26 September 2019, such order to be self-executing in nature. The plaintiff was to pay the defendant’s costs of the application to strike out the reply. The court further ordered a restriction against inspection or further publication of certain material and upon any access to the affidavit of Ms Clarke without prior permission of the court. The matter was stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 17 October 2019.
The central issue before the court was whether the plaintiff’s reply should be struck out due to its excessive length, failure to address the defences pleaded by the defendant, and the fact that the plaintiff was acting as a litigant in person. The court was also required to consider whether the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend the reply, and if so, what conditions should be attached to such an order.
The court found that the plaintiff’s reply was excessive and did not address the defences pleaded by the defendant. The court noted that the plaintiff was a litigant in person and had been warned on multiple occasions about the need to comply with the court’s orders and directions. The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct warranted the striking out of the reply. However, the court granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the reply, subject to a number of conditions, including a restriction on the inspection or further publication of certain material.
The court ordered that the plaintiff’s reply filed on 18 July 2019 be struck out and that the document relied upon be the “Plaintiff’s written submissions” filed on 8 August 2019. The court also ordered that the plaintiff’s reply dated 8 August 2019 be struck out with leave to amend by 26 September 2019, such order to be self-executing in nature. The plaintiff was to pay the defendant’s costs of the application to strike out the reply. The court further ordered a restriction against inspection or further publication of certain material and upon any access to the affidavit of Ms Clarke without prior permission of the court. The matter was stood over to the Defamation List on Thursday 17 October 2019.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Tort Law
Legal Concepts
-
Defamation
-
Abuse of Process
-
Costs
-
Discovery & Disclosure
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Clarke (Naicker) v Health Care Complaints Commission [2024] NSWSC 153
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Clarke (Naicker) v Health Care Complaints Commission
[2024] NSWSC 153
South Eastern Sydney Local Health District v Clarke
[2021] NSWSC 63
Clarke v Nursing and Midwifery Council of New South Wales (No. 4)
[2019] NSWDC 659
Cases Cited
1
Statutory Material Cited
3
Naidoo v State of Queensland
[2017] QDC 63
Naidoo v State of Queensland
[2017] QDC 63