Fuller v Toms

The appeal before the court was between Fuller, the appellant, and Toms, the respondents, who had previously filed a claim against Fuller for defamation. Fuller filed three pleadings in response, which were struck out by the primary judge for substantial deficiencies. After being granted leave to file a further amended defence and counterclaim, Fuller's subsequent pleading was also struck out, and he was ordered to obtain leave before filing any further pleadings. The respondents then filed a notice of discontinuance, and the appellant applied for leave to file an amended defence and counterclaim. The primary judge refused the appellant's application, granted the respondents leave to discontinue, and ordered Fuller to pay the respondents' costs. Fuller appealed against these orders.

The primary legal issues were whether the primary judge erred in determining that Fuller's pleadings were substantially deficient, in striking out his pleadings and refusing his application for leave, in granting the respondents leave to discontinue, and in not making orders for disclosure of documents. The court also considered whether Fuller suffered prejudice, injustice, or was deprived of substantive rights due to the discontinuance, and whether the costs orders should be set aside. Additionally, the court examined whether the primary judge erred in refusing Fuller's application to disqualify himself due to apprehended bias.

The court held that the primary judge did not err in striking out Fuller's pleadings and refusing his application for leave. The pleadings contained substantial deficiencies and were inconsistent with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. The primary judge did not err in granting the respondents leave to discontinue, as Fuller did not suffer prejudice, injustice, or a deprivation of substantive rights. The court also found that the primary judge did not err in refusing Fuller's application for disqualification due to apprehended bias, as there was no reasonable apprehension that the primary judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the issues. The costs orders were upheld, and the applications for leave to adduce fresh evidence were refused.

The court dismissed Fuller's appeal with costs and refused his applications to adduce fresh evidence and lodge further submissions.