SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Manny v ACT |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 151 |
Hearing Date: | 13 March 2024 |
Decision Date: | 15 April 2025 |
Before: | McWilliam J |
Decision: | In each of the four proceedings, the pleadings are struck out with leave granted to replead on conditions. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – STRIKE-OUT – whether proceedings disclose reasonable cause of action – leave granted to replead on conditions |
Legislation Cited: | Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 5A Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 50, 405, 406, 407, 425(1), Dictionary Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) Fair Trading Act 1992 (ACT) Housing Act 1985 (ACT) Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) |
Cases Cited: | Aldous v State of New South Wales [2018] NSWCA 261 Bolas v Calvary Health Care ACT Ltd [2016] ACTSC 58 Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2010] ACTSC 132 Jae Kyong Lee v Bob Chae-Sang Cha [2008] NSWCA 13 Jeray v Blue Mountains City Council (No 2) [2010] NSWCA 367 Manny v Australian Postal Corporation [2025] ACTSC 148 Manny v Commonwealth of Australia(No 2) [2025] ACTSC 146 Manny v David Lardner Lawyers (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 289 Manny v David Lardner Lawyers (No 4) [2024] ACTCA 12 Manny v Shiels [2022] ACTCA 22 McColley v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTCA 21 Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235 P and W v Manny and Anor [2010] ACTSC 50 Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; 241 CLR 118 The Owners – Units Plan No 1917 v Koundouris & Anor [2014] ACTSC 269 |
Parties: | Jeff Manny ( Plaintiff) Australian Capital Territory ( Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel Self-represented ( Plaintiff) D Crowe ( Defendant) |
| Solicitors Self-represented (Plaintiff) ACT Government Solicitor ( Defendant) | |
File Numbers: | SC 500 of 2022, SC 64 of 2023, SC 82 of 2023, SC 96 of 2023 |
McWILLIAM J:
1․Mr Manny (the plaintiff) has commenced 14 separate proceedings against the Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth), the Australian Capital Territory (Territory), the University of Canberra and the Australia Postal Corporation. In each case, relief of many millions of dollars is sought in damages or compensation.
2․This judgment deals only with the proceedings involving the Territory as defendant, being the following proceedings:
(a)SC 500 of 2022, commenced by originating claim and statement of claim filed 19 December 2023 (Dental Treatment Claim);
(b)SC 64 of 2023 commenced by originating claim and statement of claim filed 10 February 2023 (Parking Infringement Claim); and
(c)SC 96 of 2023 commenced by originating claim and statement of claim filed 27 February 2023 (Housing Claim).
(d)SC 82 of 2023 commenced against the Territory (following substitution) by a Further Amended Originating Claim filed 13 December 2023 (Walking Tracks Claim).
Applications for determination
3․The Territory has filed an application in each proceeding seeking that the operative pleadings in the proceeding be struck out, but…
Continue reading Manny v ACT
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Manny v ACT [2025] ACTSC 151
- Case
- [2025] ACTSC 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action that could be further developed through repleading. The court was required to examine the adequacy of the plaintiff's claims, including whether they complied with the rules of court and were legally sound. The court also needed to determine if the claims were sufficient to warrant a hearing, or if they were so deficient that they warranted dismissal.
The court found that while the plaintiff's claims had some merit, the pleadings were not sufficiently clear or detailed to allow the proceedings to continue. The court acknowledged that the plaintiff's case had the potential to be viable, but the current pleadings were insufficient to allow the merits of the case to be determined. The court granted leave to the plaintiff to replead on specific conditions, including the requirement to provide more detailed particulars and to address the deficiencies identified by the court. The court struck out the pleadings but allowed the plaintiff an opportunity to improve their case.
The court's orders were that the pleadings in each of the four proceedings were struck out, but leave was granted to the plaintiff to replead on conditions. The plaintiff was required to file amended pleadings within a specified timeframe, ensuring that they addressed the deficiencies identified by the court. The court's decision highlighted the importance of clear and detailed pleadings in ensuring that proceedings have a fair chance of proceeding to a hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
In each of the four proceedings, the pleadings are struck out with leave granted to replead on conditions.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.