Le v Plummer

In Le v Plummer, the plaintiff brought a malicious prosecution claim against thirteen individuals, the Commonwealth of Australia, and the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP). The defendants filed multiple applications, including applications to strike out various paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim and an application for summary judgment. The court had to decide whether the statement of claim sufficiently particularised the claims, identified the material facts relied upon, and whether the summary judgment application could be determined on a summary basis.

Justice Tottle found that the statement of claim had significant structural deficiencies. It failed to sufficiently identify the case against each defendant, particularly in terms of their role as a prosecutor, the elements of malice, and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The plaintiff's pleadings were too vague and generalised, using a formulaic approach that did not adequately disclose the material facts. The court also found that the fifteenth defendant's application for summary judgment could not be determined on a summary basis as it involved questions of fact.

The court struck out the statement of claim in its entirety, allowing the plaintiff leave to replead the case with adequate specificity and detail. The court emphasised that the plaintiff must disaggregate the pleas made against the various defendants and identify the case advanced against each defendant, including their alleged role as a prosecutor, accompanied by specific pleas of malice and absence of reasonable and probable cause.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for summary judgment and granted the application to strike out the statement of claim, with leave to replead. The plaintiff was required to file an amended statement of claim that sufficiently identified the material facts relied upon and the specific elements of the tort of malicious prosecution against each defendant.