Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the ACT (No 2)

The matter before the court was an application by the Council and President of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (the "Defendants") to strike out certain paragraphs from the Statement of Claim and Reply filed by the plaintiff, Emmanuel Tam Ezekiel-Hart. The defendants also sought security for costs on the basis of the plaintiff's impecuniosity and other factors. The legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's allegations of fraud and dishonesty were properly pleaded and particularised, and whether an order for security for costs should be made in the circumstances of the case. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to have serious allegations properly pleaded and particularised, and that the defendants were entitled to have a matter properly pleaded in accordance with the rules. The court struck out the identified paragraphs of the Statement of Claim and Reply and gave the plaintiff leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim. The court also dismissed the application for security for costs, finding that while the pleadings were prolix and incoherent, it was more appropriate to address the issue of incoherence or lack of merit directly rather than by an indirect route which combined an assessment of the incoherence with the impecuniosity of the plaintiff.