Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McCarthy v National Australia Bank [2020] NSWSC 1355 Hearing dates: 8 September 2020 Date of orders: 6 October 2020 Decision date: 06 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Harrison AsJ Decision: The Court orders that:
(1) These proceedings are struck out and dismissed.
(2) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant’s costs on an ordinary basis.
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Application to strike out pleadings - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 rr 13.4 and 14.28 – Abuse of process – Tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28, 15.3
Cases Cited: Banque Commerciale SA, En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; (1990) 92 ALR 53
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
Habib v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 231
Iacullo v Iacullo [2013] NSWSC 1517
McCarthy v National Australia Bank Limited [2015] NSWCA 32
McCarthy v National Australia Bank Limited [2015] NSWCA 370
McCarthy v National Australia Bank Limited (No 2) [2015] NSWCA 230
National Australia Bank Limited v McCarthy [2014] NSWSC 1819
National Australia Bank Limited v McCarthy [2015] NSWSC 1040
National Australia Bank Limited v McCarthy [2015] NSWSC 731
Richard Churchill v The University of Sydney [2020] NSWSC 1343
State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Alexander Stenhouse Ltd ((1997) Aust Tort Rep 81-423 at 64,809)
Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Warren Brian McCarthy (Plaintiff)
National Australia Bank (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Self Represented (Plaintiff)
ZM Hillman (Defendant)
Self Represented (Plaintiff)
Dentons Australia (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2020/189580 Publication restriction: Nil
Judgment
-
HER HONOUR: By notice of motion filed 28 July 2020, the defendant seeks:
an order pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) that the whole or parts of the plaintiff’s statement of claim filed 26 June 2020 be struck out on the basis that it:
discloses no reasonable cause of action;
has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceedings; or
is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court; or in the alternative,
-
The plaintiff is Warren Brian McCarthy. The defendant is the National Australia Bank (“NAB”). The plaintiff relied upon his affidavit dated 3 August 2020. The defendant relied upon the affidavits of its solicitors, Danielle Catherine Lysenko dated 28 July 2020 and Emma Jane Hodgman dated 31 August 2020. Both parties relied on their written submissions. For convenience, I will refer to the parties by name.
-
At the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McCarthy v National Australia Bank 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NSWSC 1355
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the bank's counterclaims were an abuse of process and if they tended to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The court considered whether the counterclaims had a real prospect of success and if they were frivolous or vexatious. The court also examined whether the counterclaims were brought in bad faith or for an improper purpose.
The court found that the bank's counterclaims were not an abuse of process and did not tend to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The counterclaims had a real prospect of success and were not frivolous or vexatious. The court held that the bank was not acting in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The applicants' application to strike out the counterclaims was dismissed.
The court ordered that the applicants pay the bank's costs of the application. The court held that the bank's counterclaims were not an abuse of process and did not tend to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The court found that the bank's counterclaims had a real prospect of success and were not frivolous or vexatious. The court also held that the bank was not acting in bad faith or for an improper purpose. The applicants' application to strike out the counterclaims was dismissed, and the bank's costs of the application were awarded.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.