M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd - [2019] NSWSC 928

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 928
Hearing dates: 16 July 2019
Decision date: 16 July 2019
Jurisdiction: Equity - Expedition List
Before: Sackar J
Decision:
Ex tempore Reasons given

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: (“M”) (plaintiff)
Monash IVF Pty Ltd (first defendant)
Monash IVF Group (second defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Self represented (plaintiff)
C O’Neill (defendants)
Solicitors:
Self represented (plaintiff)
Colin Biggers Paisley (defendants)

File Number(s): 2018/230259

Judgment – ex tempore

The proceedings in this Court were brought initially before the Duty Judge but ultimately came to the Expedition List for directions where the matter was expedited. The plaintiff subsequently prepared an extensive statement of claim which runs for some 2,000 paragraphs. There was a proposal that there be further amendments on the morning of the hearing, however that issue was not proceeded with.
The defendant asserts that the proceedings are frivolous and vexatious. Further that there is no reasonable cause of action disclosed and that the proceedings are otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court and should be dismissed.
The procedural history of the current matter involves numerous directions hearings. First before Pembroke J as Duty Judge on 19 September 2018. Subsequently, the matter came before me on 21 September and certain directions were made about the filing of evidence.
Again, on 23 October 2018, there were some further directions which involved matters of particulars and it was at that point that I made an order that the matter proceed by way of pleadings. The matter was again before me on 20 November and 14 December, and again orders were made of a procedural nature.
As I have already observed the pleading comprises some 2,000 paragraphs and bears a date, January 2019. I am not entirely sure when that was first served on the defendants. But what the pleading sought to do was to add a very significant number of additional defendants who were unrelated to the current defendants.
A number of persons ultimately, including the South Eastern Sydney Local Health Service, the State of New South Wales and others, appeared before the Court in order to have their positions reserved. Ultimately, the plaintiff indicated that she did not wish to proceed against any of those persons for the time being and as a result of that I made orders staying the proceedings against various defendants on 22 March 2019.
Subsequently, in May of this year, I fixed the hearing of the matter against the current defendants for two days, 16 and 17 July. The plaintiff on the morning of 16 July, although she had previously distributed a very detailed index of documents, handed to the Court three lever arch folders of documents which comprise many and varied documents. Some of them are affidavits previously prepared and deployed by her in the past, going back as early as 2014.
There are many medical records and other documentation which has come into her possession over the years, some of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read M v Monash IVF Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] NSWSC 928
Decision Date: 16 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, M brought proceedings against Monash IVF Pty Ltd and Monash IVF Group, alleging breaches of contract and tortious conduct. The plaintiff, represented pro se, contended that the defendants failed to meet their obligations under a contract for the storage and use of donor sperm in assisted reproductive procedures. The case, marked by a highly detailed statement of claim with over 2,000 paragraphs, was marked by procedural complexity, including numerous amendments and the addition of several unrelated defendants.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were frivolous and vexatious, and whether they disclosed any reasonable cause of action. Given the extensive procedural history, which included multiple directions hearings, the court also had to assess whether the plaintiff's extensive documentation, including medical records and affidavits, could support her claims.

The court found the proceedings to be vexatious and frivolous, as the plaintiff's voluminous and complex pleadings did not clearly articulate any viable cause of action. Despite the plaintiff's evident intelligence and deep sense of grievance, the court concluded that no cause of action was apparent. The evidence filed was deemed unintelligible and did not rationally support any claims against the defendants. Consequently, the court dismissed the proceedings in their entirety, reserving the question of costs for the time being.

The court's decision underscores the importance of clear and concise legal pleadings in supporting a viable cause of action. The dismissal highlights the court's stance on frivolous litigation, particularly when the claims are not substantiated by rational and coherent evidence.

Orders