Mohareb v Palmer (No. 3)

The case of Mohareb v Palmer (No. 3) involved an application by the plaintiff for leave to prosecute the first defendant for perjury under section 338(1)(c) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The plaintiff sought to hold the first defendant accountable for any false statements, specifically an omission from an affidavit prepared by the first defendant’s legal advisers, which were alleged to have been made in connection with the ongoing proceedings. The court had to determine whether the plaintiff had identified the false statement with sufficient precision and whether it was made in connection with the proceedings.

The court examined the criteria for granting leave to prosecute under the relevant section of the Crimes Act. It assessed whether the plaintiff had provided a clear and specific identification of the alleged false statement and whether the statement was made in connection with the proceedings. The court held that the plaintiff had not met the required standard of precision in identifying the false statement, and therefore, the application for leave to prosecute was dismissed.

The court further found that the plaintiff’s application was not sufficiently detailed to warrant the granting of leave. The plaintiff had not demonstrated that the alleged omission from the affidavit was a clear and specific false statement made in connection with the proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and ordered the plaintiff to pay the first defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis. Additionally, the court dismissed the first defendant’s Notice of Motion with no order as to costs.