Krich v Hadid

The case of Krich v Hadid involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Krich, and the first defendant, Hadid. The plaintiff sought to have the first defendant's defence struck out on the grounds of repeated non-compliance with directions, as well as seeking costs associated with the application. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff had provided adequate notice of the application and if the first defendant's defence could be struck out.

The court examined the notice provided by the plaintiff to the first defendant regarding the application to have the defence struck out. The primary legal issue was whether the plaintiff had given sufficient notice to the first defendant, as required by the court's rules. The court noted that the plaintiff had not strictly adhered to the procedural requirements for giving notice, which could potentially impact the outcome of the application. Additionally, the court considered whether the first defendant's repeated non-compliance with directions warranted the striking out of their defence.

In resolving the matter, the court found that while the plaintiff's application should have been allowed in principle, the failure to provide adequate notice was a significant procedural error. The court concluded that the first defendant's defence could be struck out due to their repeated non-compliance with directions. However, the court determined that the plaintiff was not entitled to costs associated with the application because of the procedural error in the notice provided. Therefore, the court made an appropriate order that there be no order as to costs.