CITATION: Hassan v Iemma [2008] NSWSC 1476 HEARING DATE(S): 25/08/08
JUDGMENT DATE :
29 August 2008JURISDICTION: Common Law Division JUDGMENT OF: Norrish AJ DECISION: 1. Statement of claim dismissed.
2. Statement of claim and affidavits of plaintiff sworn 14/02/08 and 22/08/08 be placed on the Court file in a sealed envelope and that sealed envelope not be opened except by order of the Court.
3. Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the motion.CATCHWORDS: COMMON LAW - removal of counsel - dismissal or 'striking out' of a statement of claim LEGISLATION CITED: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, Rules 12, 13, 14
Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 131
Supreme Court Act 1970, ss19, 23
New South Wales Consitution Act 1902, ss 5, 35E
Australian Constitution Act 1900
Civil Liability Act 2002, ss 5A, B, C, D, ECATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Lewis v Odgen (1984) 53 ALR 53
Ex Parte Bellanto:Re Prior [1963] NSWR 1156
MacGroarty v Clauson (1989) 167 CLR 251
GuarantyTrust Co of New York v Hannay & Co [1915] 2 KB 536
CSR Ltd v Hornsby Shire Council [2004] NSWSC 946
Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd (1983) 46 ALR 451
Commonwealth v Queensland (1975) 134 CLR 298
Kable v DPP (1995) 189 CLR 84
BLF v Minister of Industrial Relations (1986) 7 NSWLR 372
Shalhoub Holdings Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2006] NSWSC 607
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62
Cox v Journeaux (No 2) (1935) 52 CLR 713
Peter Kent Development Pty Ltd v ANZ Banking Group Ltd NSWSC, unreported, Hunt J 6 May 1980
Burton v The President of the Shire of Bairnsdale (1905) 7 CLR 76
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd (1982) 2 NSWLR 937
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534
MLC Co Ltd v Evatt (1970) 122 CLR 628
Air Services Australia v Zarb NSWCA, unreported, 26 August 1998
Keating v Bromley London Borough Council [1995] 2AC 633
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 522
Simanovic v The Queen [1998] HCA 40
Hunter Area Health Service v Presland {2005} NSWCA 33
Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562
Dorset Yacht Co Ltd v Home Office [1970] AC 1004
Wyong Shire Council v Shirt (1980) 146 CLR 40
Donoughue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562
Hassan v District Court of NSW & Anor, unreported, 10 November 2006TEXTS CITED: R P Lumb, The Constitutions of the Australian States (1991) .
Anne Twomey, The Constitution of New South Wales (2004) Federation Press at 642-645.
MJC Vile, Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers (1967) Clarendon Press.PARTIES: Omar Hassan - Plaintiff
The Hon Morris Iemma MP - DefendantFILE NUMBER(S): SC 020044/08 SOLICITORS: Omar Hassan - Plaintiff
Crown Solicitors Office - Defendant
JUDGMENT
Introduction
1 On 14 February 2008 Omar Hassan (“the plaintiff”) by statement of claim commenced proceedings against “The Honourable Morris Iemma MP Premier of New South Wales” (“the defendant”). The plaintiff, who represented himself, and the defendant, represented by the…
Continue reading Hassan v Iemma
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hassan v Iemma [2008] NSWSC 1476
- Case
- [2008] NSWSC 1476
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Hassan v Iemma arose before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, Hassan, sought to sue the defendant, Iemma, over an alleged defamatory statement. The nature of the dispute involved the removal of the plaintiff's counsel and the subsequent dismissal of his statement of claim. The court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal was appropriate, given the circumstances of the case and the procedural steps that had been taken.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim was justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of the plaintiff's removal of his counsel. The court had to consider the relevant principles of procedure and justice, as well as the implications of the removal of counsel on the ability of the plaintiff to properly pursue his claim. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff had a genuine prospect of success in his defamation action and whether the dismissal would cause substantial injustice.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim was appropriate. The reasoning focused on the plaintiff's decision to remove his counsel and the procedural steps that followed. The court found that the plaintiff's actions demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the claim, and that the dismissal served as a just outcome given the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for parties to adhere to the rules of court. Ultimately, the court concluded that the dismissal did not result in substantial injustice and was warranted in the context of the case.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff. The court's decision highlighted the consequences of removing counsel and the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the court.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim was justified under the circumstances, particularly in light of the plaintiff's removal of his counsel. The court had to consider the relevant principles of procedure and justice, as well as the implications of the removal of counsel on the ability of the plaintiff to properly pursue his claim. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the plaintiff had a genuine prospect of success in his defamation action and whether the dismissal would cause substantial injustice.
In delivering the judgment, the court held that the dismissal of the plaintiff's statement of claim was appropriate. The reasoning focused on the plaintiff's decision to remove his counsel and the procedural steps that followed. The court found that the plaintiff's actions demonstrated a lack of seriousness in pursuing the claim, and that the dismissal served as a just outcome given the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of procedural fairness and the need for parties to adhere to the rules of court. Ultimately, the court concluded that the dismissal did not result in substantial injustice and was warranted in the context of the case.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed with costs to be paid by the plaintiff. The court's decision highlighted the consequences of removing counsel and the importance of adhering to the procedural requirements of the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.