Kleeman v The Star Entertainment Group Limited (No 2)

In this case, the plaintiff, Kleeman, brought a personal injury claim against The Star Entertainment Group Limited (the first defendant) and another entity (the second defendant) in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff, who was self-represented, alleged that he suffered injuries during an incident at a casino operated by the first defendant. The defendants contested the claims, raising issues about the plaintiff's credibility and the adequacy of his evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the interests of justice required the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceeding due to his repeated failures to appear in court and provide adequate medical evidence, despite multiple opportunities and indulgences granted by the court. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to access the courts against the need to manage the court's resources efficiently and ensure that proceedings were not prolonged unreasonably. The court also considered whether the defendants had raised legitimate concerns about the veracity of the plaintiff's claims, which could impact the overall fairness of the litigation process.

The court found that the plaintiff's conduct throughout the proceedings had been marked by significant non-compliance with court directions and a lack of credible evidence. The court noted that the plaintiff had been granted numerous indulgences, but these had not resulted in any meaningful progress or compliance with court orders. The evidence presented by the defendants suggested that the plaintiff's claims were not credible, which further undermined the viability of his case. Based on these findings, the court concluded that dismissing the proceeding was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and to prevent the waste of court resources. Consequently, the plaintiff's proceeding was dismissed, and orders were made for the plaintiff to pay costs to both defendants.

The court ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's proceeding and directed that the plaintiff pay the second defendant's costs on the standard basis until the end of the first day of trial and on the indemnity basis for subsequent days. Regarding the first defendant, the plaintiff was to pay costs on the standard basis until a specific date and on the indemnity basis thereafter. The first defendant was granted liberty to apply if a different date was identified as the last correspondence informing the plaintiff that the first defendant was not properly a party to the proceeding.