Legal Research
Cases
Karlsson v Griffith University

Karlsson v Griffith University

Link copied

Case Copied 7 April 2020 48 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karlsson v Griffith University [2020] NSWSC 365
Hearing dates: 14 February 2020
Date of orders: 07 April 2020
Decision date: 07 April 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wright J
Decision:
(1) Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim dated 21 October 2019 is refused.

(2) Pursuant to r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the proceedings are dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings, in addition to the costs ordered to be paid by Adamson J on 1 October 2019, on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.
(4) The plaintiff’s amended notice of motion filed on 10 December 2019 and the defendant’s notice of motion filed on 2 December 2019 are otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Leave sought to file proposed amended pleading – Abuse of process – No reasonable cause of action – Tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay – Where proposed pleading embarrassing and disclosed no reasonable cause of action – Leave to file proposed amended pleading refused

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Frivolous or vexatious proceedings –Abuse of process – No reasonable cause of action disclosed – Where demands made for payment in settlement of matter before proceedings commenced – Where plaintiff unlikely ever to be able to plead a reasonable cause of action – Where defendant required to incur expense in defending proceedings – Proceedings dismissed
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Inherent power – Abuse of process – Whether orders prohibiting plaintiff from commencing new proceedings dealing with same subject matter without leave appropriate – Whether commencement of new proceedings should be conditional on payment of costs of earlier proceedings – Orders not made
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law
Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Banque Commerciale SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11
Council of Trinity Grammar School v Anderson [2019] NSWCA 292
Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
Dowling v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1915) 20 CLR 509
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd. (In Liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490; [1916] HCA 81
Horton v Jones (No. 2) (1939) 39 SR(NSW) 305; [1939] 56 WN (NSW) 161
Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd v SST Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 75; [2009] HCA 43
Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 97
Karlsson v Griffith University [2019] NSWSC 1335
McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd [1999] FCA 110; (1999) 165 ALR 409
Nguyen v QTQ Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1629
Patrick Jebb as trustee for the Trafalgar…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Karlsson v Griffith University and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] NSWSC 365
Decision Date: 07 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Karlsson v Griffith University, the plaintiff sought leave to file an amended pleading, which was denied by the court. The plaintiff, Mr. Karlsson, had initially brought proceedings against Griffith University, alleging various claims. The court was tasked with determining whether Mr. Karlsson should be granted leave to amend his pleadings and whether the proceedings should be dismissed as frivolous or vexatious.

The legal issues before the court included whether the proposed amended pleading disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the proceedings should be dismissed for being an abuse of process. The court had to assess if the proposed pleadings were embarrassing and did not reveal a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, the court considered whether the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious, and if they had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay.

In its decision, the court held that the proposed amended pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and were likely to cause embarrassment or delay. The court found that Mr. Karlsson was unlikely to be able to plead a reasonable cause of action, and the proceedings had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. Consequently, the court refused leave to file the proposed amended pleadings and dismissed the proceedings. The court also declined to make orders prohibiting Mr. Karlsson from commencing new proceedings without leave and conditional on the payment of the costs of the earlier proceedings.

The final orders of the court were that leave to file the proposed amended pleadings was refused and the proceedings were dismissed. The court found that the proceedings were frivolous or vexatious and had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. No orders were made concerning the commencement of new proceedings without leave or conditional on the payment of costs.

Orders