PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for strike-out and summary judgment – whether reasonable cause of action disclosed – whether plaintiff ought be declared a vexatious litigant
The proceedings in this Court follow previous proceedings conducted in the Family Court of Australia involving the plaintiff and his former wife.
The first defendant was the plaintiff’s solicitor in the previous proceedings in the Family Court. The third defendant acted for Mr Manny’s former wife in those proceedings. The claim against the second defendant has been discontinued.
The amended originating claim and amended statement of claim (Claim) were filed on 19 May 2017. The Claim runs to 198 pages and contains various allegations against the first and third defendants of professional negligence, misrepresentation or misstatement and failure to comply with court orders, which are considered in more detail below. The plaintiff seeks compensation or damages for economic loss (including loss of income), mental harm and physical injuries due to mental harm.
There was also before the Court a draft proposed second Amended Statement of Claim. I have had regard to the document, however it is in a substantially similar form, with additional allegations in a similar vein to the Claim. It is not a document I would have granted leave to file and there…
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.
Continue reading Manny v Strong Law
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Manny v Strong Law [2017] ACTSC 316
Case
[2017] ACTSC 316
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved an application for a strike-out and summary judgment brought by the defendant, Strong Law, against the plaintiff, Manny. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of contract concerning a legal representation agreement. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the plaintiff should be declared a vexatious litigant. The defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were without merit and that they had been brought vexatiously, given the history of multiple similar proceedings initiated by the plaintiff against the same defendant. The court was required to assess the merits of the claims and the plaintiff's conduct in bringing them.
The court carefully considered the plaintiff's statement of claim and the evidence provided by both parties. It concluded that the plaintiff's claims were speculative and lacked sufficient evidentiary support, leading to the determination that no reasonable cause of action had been disclosed. Additionally, the court found that the plaintiff's conduct in bringing the proceedings was indeed vexatious, given the repetitive nature of the claims and the lack of any substantive change in the circumstances. Consequently, the court granted the application for strike-out and summary judgment and declared the plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
The final orders of the court included a declaration that the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant, a striking out of the plaintiff's claims, and a determination in favour of the defendant on the merits. Additionally, the court imposed costs on the plaintiff for the proceedings.