Langford Intelligence Pty Ltd v Thompson

[2025] VCC 819

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

COMMERCIAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

BANKING AND FINANCE LIST

Case No. CI-22-00470

LANGFORD INTELLIGENCE PTY LTD (ACN 101 520 101)	First plaintiff
COLIN JOHN JACKSON	Second plaintiff
SIMON LEE SAINT-JOHN	Third plaintiff
v
BROOKE THOMPSON	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE WISE
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 June 2025
DATE OF RULING:	6 June 2025 (ex tempore)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Langford Intelligence Pty Ltd & Ors v Thompson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VCC 819

RULING
---

Subject:STRIKING OUT OF PLEADING

Catchwords: Rule 23.02(c), embarrassing pleading, self-represented litigant, narrative and submissions mixed, no clear case or material facts, entire pleading struck out, adjournment, insufficient medical evidence, non-appearance, proceeding in absence.

Legislation Cited:      County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2018 (Vic)

Cases Cited:Meckiff v Simpson [1968] VR 62, Sarto v Sarto [2021] VSC 295, Gunns v Marr [2005] VSC 251, Russell v Murrindindi Shire Council (No 2) [2020] VSC 463

Ruling:  

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr B Fry	Williams Winter
For the Defendant	No appearance, Self-represented

HIS HONOUR:

1I have before me an application by the plaintiff to strike out the defendant’s Further Amended Defence dated 17 January 2024. The strike-out is sought under Rule 23.02 of the County Court Civil Procedure Rules.

2When the matter came on for hearing, Mr Brooke Thompson (the defendant) was called three times outside the Court.  However, he did not appear.  By an exchange of correspondence with chambers yesterday, Mr Thompson had foreshadowed making an application for an adjournment of today’s application.  He provided to the Court successively over a period of time, what purported to be medical certificates which he said evidenced that he was medically unfit to appear, either in person or electronically, in response to this application.  By email, my chambers indicated to Mr Thompson that the medical certificates that he had provided were insufficient and set out precisely what was required of medical evidence to support his adjournment application.

3Yesterday he provided a further medical certificate which still does not provide the critical material to have enabled me to form a view that I should exercise the discretion to grant an adjournment in his favour.  As matters transpired, notwithstanding having been told that he needed to appear in order to make the adjournment application, he had not appeared.  Under those circumstances, I am satisfied that he is aware that this application is on for hearing today.  He was also aware that should he not appear today, the matter would proceed in his absence.

4Under those circumstances, I proceeded to hear the application.

5Mr Fry, counsel for the plaintiff, succinctly outlined the principles applicable to both of two matters: first, to the rules of pleading, and particularly the circumstances under Rule 23.02 that would lead a court to strike out a pleading. This was based on the proposition in 23.02(c) that the Further Amended Defence had a tendency to embarrass the further conduct of the proceeding.

6The principles of and purpose of pleading are well-known.  The purpose of the rule similarly is well-known.  It is to secure compliance with the rules of pleading (Meckiff v Simpson [1968] VR 62, at 70). As submitted by Mr Fry, the rule applies where there is some defect in a pleading, so as to embarrass the opposite party who does not know what is alleged against them, for example, where the pleading is unintelligible, vague, ambiguous or too general. The meaning of ‘embarrass’ was set out by Derham AJ in Sarto v Sarto [2021] VSC 295 at [42(c)], where his Honour said:

“In general, a pleading or indorsement is embarrassing when it places the opposite party in the position that they do not know what is alleged against  them; Thus a pleading which is unintelligible, or is vague or ambiguous, or is too general is embarrassing.”

7Mr Fry also submitted that if the form of the pleading as a whole is particularly bad, the Court will not normally be astute to go through it paragraph by paragraph, to identify those paragraphs which should stand, and those which should be struck out, but rather will strike out the entire pleading (Gunns v Marr [2005] VSC 251, at [58]).

8It is true that certain latitude will be given to self-represented litigants to the extent that they should not be expected to be able to plead in quite as concise a manner as would be done by experienced counsel retained in a matter.  In Russell v Murrindindi Shire Council(No 2) [2020] VSC 463, Daly AJ said this:

“The statement of claim must be in a single document, and self-contained, such that it is not necessary to refer to other documents (themselves difficult to read, being handwritten, and poorly expressed) in order to determine what the nature of the plaintiff’s claim, and the facts the plaintiff relies upon (and will need to prove) in order to obtain relief from the court.  Whilst self-represented litigants are entitled to some latitude, and some assistance from the court, the rules of pleading must be obeyed so that the defendant (and the court) can understand the way in which a plaintiff’s case is put.”

9I understand the principles that I should apply in respect of a self-represented litigant to be this.  As long as a pleading fairly and unambiguously makes clear to the other party and to the Court what the case is to be run and what facts are to be relied upon, the Court should not be overly pernickety in requiring compliance with the rules of pleading.  However, the substance of the pleading must have those characteristics that I have set out.

10Mr Fry submits that the Further Amended Defence filed by Mr Thompson is embarrassing in the sense that it does not fairly give either his client or the Court a clear articulation of the case that is to be made, or the facts upon which it is based, in such a way as to permit that case to be met and determined at trial.

11He notes three characteristics of this pleading that he says offend.  They are:  first, that the document itself is 40 pages long, largely single spaced, with very large slabs of text; second, he notes that it comprises 50 paragraphs over 40 pages; third, he says that the pleading is a mixture of narrative, facts (without regard to the rules of evidence) and submissions combined with what appears to be stream of consciousness material.

12I have considered the document myself and accept that it has all of these characteristics.  The document does not distinguish between proposition of fact, material fact, particulars of those facts and propositions of law.  Rather, all of those matters are mixed together, along with submissions and unstructured narrative which might bear the descriptor “stream of consciousness”.  It does not permit the Court to understand precisely, nor even generally, what Mr Thompson intends to prove, nor in general terms or with specificity the case that he intends to run.  Under those circumstances, the plaintiff cannot be expected to either understand or meet the matters in this defence.  The document also does not permit the Court to understand the issues to be determined. 

13I note that the authorities do not require me to pluck out of this document matters which might satisfy the rules of pleading and strike out those which do not.  It is true that this document, to the extent that it amends an earlier document drawn by senior and junior counsel, leaves intact some of those matters from the previous document.  However, the interspersal of Mr Thompson’s new material makes it impossible to strike out that which should properly be struck out and leave in that which properly should remain.  Under those circumstances, it is right and proper that the entire Further Amended Defence should be struck out and I will do so.

- - -

Certificate

I certify that these 5 pages are a true copy of the judgment of His Honour Judge Wise delivered on 6 June 2025.

Dated: 20 June 2025

Liam Crough

Associate to His Honour Judge Wise.