Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2)

The matter of Michail v Mount Druitt & Area Community Legal Centre (No. 2) involved a plaintiff who was a litigant in person, bringing claims for breach of contract and defamation against the defendant. The court was required to determine whether the claims were sufficiently pleaded and whether the proceedings should be struck out or if the plaintiff should be granted leave to amend. The court's ruling came after successive statements of claim had failed to adequately plead and particularise the claims, leading to applications for summary dismissal by the defendant.

The court examined the legal issues of whether the claims were hopeless, an abuse of process, or disproportionate to the relief claimed. The court held that while the claims were not sufficiently hopeless to warrant summary dismissal, they were deficient in pleading and particularisation. Consequently, the court refused the defendant's application for summary dismissal but granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the pleadings. The court also made specific rulings on the defendant's objections to the pleadings, striking out certain paragraphs and allowing others to be repleaded with precision.

In its detailed order, the court allowed the defendant to file an amended notice of motion, struck out various paragraphs of the plaintiff's pleadings, and directed the plaintiff to rename all persons by their names instead of initials. The court provided detailed instructions on which parts of the pleadings were to be struck out, which were to be struck out with leave to replead, and which needed clarifying amendments. Additionally, the court set timelines for the plaintiff to file a further amended statement of claim and for the defendant to provide particulars and a reply, reserving costs and continuing certain procedural orders. The matter was stood over to a later date for further proceedings.