McNamara Business & Property Law v Kasmeridis & Anor

McNamara Business & Property Law (the applicant) sought to strike out the defence and enter summary judgment against the respondents, Kasmeridis and Kasmeridis (the respondents), in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned a claim for professional negligence arising from alleged breaches of duty by the respondents, who were solicitors acting for the applicant in a previous legal matter. The applicant contended that the respondents' defence was without merit and that there was no real prospect of success for the respondents in defending the claim.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the respondents' defence disclosed a sufficient basis to resist the applicant's application for summary judgment. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the respondents had raised triable issues that warranted a full hearing, or if their defence was so weak that it should be struck out. This involved an assessment of the evidence presented by both parties in relation to the alleged negligence and the respondents' purported defences.

The Court considered the principles governing summary judgment applications, emphasising that such applications should only be granted where there is no reasonable prospect of success for the party against whom judgment is sought. The Court found that the respondents had failed to demonstrate any arguable defence to the applicant's claim of professional negligence. The material before the Court did not establish any genuine dispute of fact or law that required determination at trial, leading the Court to conclude that the defence lacked substance.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the respondents' defence be struck out and that judgment be entered for the applicant.