Liao v New South Wales

In *Liao v New South Wales*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered an appeal concerning the adequacy of a defence and the compulsion of admissions in proceedings brought by Mr Liao and Mr Zhang against the State of New South Wales. The dispute arose from allegations of malicious prosecution and lack of reasonable and probable cause in relation to charges laid against the plaintiffs. The appeal involved a review of the primary judge's orders regarding the pleadings and the defendant's obligation to make admissions.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether certain parts of the defendant's defence should be struck out as an abuse of process, and whether the court had the power to compel the defendant to make admissions in the present proceedings based on findings made in prior, related proceedings. Specifically, the court examined whether it was an abuse of process for the defendant to require the plaintiffs to prove matters that had allegedly been determined in earlier litigation where the defendant was sued by a different plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the defendant should be granted leave to amend its defence in accordance with a document submitted to the court, subject to certain findings. The court found that the allegation of embarrassment in the pleading was unnecessary and not a relevant ground for striking out a pleading under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Regarding the compulsion of admissions, the court noted that while the argument was developed by reference to Mr Liao's proceedings, it was convenient to address the issue in relation to Mr Zhang's claim first. The court concluded that for certain particulars, the defendant's proposed amended defence made relevant admissions, rendering the need for further compelled admissions unnecessary. For other particulars, the court indicated that the issues should be dealt with by a judge in the Division, particularly where the resolution of pleading issues relied on a document not before the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.