Knorr v CSIRO (No 3)

[2012] VSC 529

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST

S CI 2011 6715

ANDREW KARL KNORR

Plaintiff

v

COMMONWEALTH SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH ORGANISATION (CSIRO)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

BORAL TIMBER (BORAL LIMITED) (ACN 008 421 761)
and ALLEN TAYLOR & COMPANY LIMITED
(ACN 000 003 056)

UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA ARBN 055 647 848 (UTAS)

MALLESONS STEPHEN JAQUES (MALLESONS)

FOREST AND WOOD PRODUCTS AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN 127 114 185) (FWPA)

MBAC CONSULTING GROUP PTY LTD
(ACN 126 232 746) (MBAC)

STATE OF VICTORIA (STATE)

First Defendant

Third Defendant

Fourth Defendant

Fifth Defendant

Sixth Defendant

Seventh Defendant

Eighth Defendant

Ninth Defendant

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 November 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Knorr v CSIRO & Ors (No 3)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 529

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Statement of Claim – Prolix pleadings – Pleading likely to delay the fair trial of the proceeding – Manifestly defective pleading – Whether proceeding should be dismissed – Whether any prospects of a fair trial on plaintiff’s pleadings – Application to file and serve a further amended statement of claim refused – Application to join an additional plaintiff refused – Plaintiff’s proceeding dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In person
For the First Defendant	Mr J.P. Slattery	Clayton Utz
For the Third Defendant	Ms E. Strong SC	Australian Government Solicitor
For the Fourth Defendant	Ms C Van Proctor	Ashurst Australia
For the Fifth Defendant	Mr R.H.M. Attiwill	Perry Maddocks Trollope
For the Sixth Defendant	Mr J.S. Mereine	King & Wood Mallesons
For the Seventh Defendant	Mr D.A Klempfner	Colin Biggers & Paisley
For the Eighth Defendant	Mr C Forster	Moray & Agnew
For the Ninth Defendant	Ms R.L. Enbom	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

1. This proceeding was issued on 12 December 2011.  The statement of claim endorsed on the writ contained 378 paragraphs.  On 9 March 2012, I struck out the plaintiff’s statement of claim.[1]  I did so because the statement of claim was manifestly defective,[2] it failing to comply with any of the ordinary rules of pleading.

   [1]Knorr v CSIRO & Ors [2012] VSC 83.

   [2]Ibid [12].

1. In striking out the plaintiff’s statement of claim, I concluded that:

(a)permitting a trial to proceed on the basis of it (the statement of claim as then pleaded) would undoubtedly prejudice, embarrass and delay the fair trial of the proceeding;

(b)there had been a general failure throughout the pleading to supply dates and plead acts or omissions with sufficient particularity to enable the defendants to know the various cases made against them;

(c)there were paragraphs which did not plead material facts – but rather, attempted to plead in an anticipatory way matters which might defeat defences, which may or may not have been taken by a particular defendant;

(d)many of the sentences in the statement of claim were no more than…