Morgan v Porteous; Morgan v Smith; Morgan v Gill; Morgan v Balding; Morgan v Espinosa; Morgan v Cooper; Morgan v Herbert; Morgan v Deasy; Morgan v McMain

[2001] NSWSC 666

CITATION:

Morgan & Anor v Porteous; Morgan & Anor v Smith; Morgan v Gill & Ors; Morgan v Balding; Morgan v Espinosa; Morgan v Cooper; Morgan v Herbert; Morgan v Deasy; Morgan v McMain [2001] NSWSC 666

CURRENT JURISDICTION:

Common Law Division

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 20502 of 2000, 20531 of 2000 and 20598 of 2000 - 20604 of 2000 (inclusive)

HEARING DATE(S):

30 July 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:

7 August 2001

PARTIES :

20502 of 2000
Morgan (First Plaintiff)
Ryan Peregrine (Second Plaintiff)
v
Peter A Porteous (Defendant)

20531 of 2000
Morgan (First Plaintiff)
Ryan Peregrine (Second Plaintiff)
v
Robert I Smith (Defendant)

20598 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Cathy Gill
Graham Harvey
Terry Sterling
Isobel Zardin
Claire Barta
Mary Thompson
Joan Whyte (Defendants)

20599 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Peter Balding (Defendant)

20600 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Cathy Espinosa (Defendant)

20601 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Margot Cooper (Defendant)

20602 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Darren Herbert (Defendant)

20603 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Margaret Deasy (Defendant)

20604 of 2000
Morgan (Plaintiff)
v
Tralie McMain (Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF:

Master Malpass

COUNSEL :	N/A (Plaintiffs) Mr M Lynch (Defendants)
SOLICITORS:	In person (Plaintiffs) I V Knight - Crown Solicitor (Defendants)
CATCHWORDS:	Proceedings in defamation.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 15, Pt 15 r 26, Pt 63 r 2, Pt 67.
CASES CITED:	N/A
DECISION:	See Paragraph 11.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

MASTER MALPASS

TUESDAY 7 AUGUST 2001

20502 of 2000 MORGAN & ANOR v PETER A PORTEOUS
20531 of 2000 MORGAN & ANOR v ROBERT I SMITH
20598 of 2000 MORGAN v CATHY GILL & ORS
20599 of 2000 MORGAN v PETER BALDING
20600 of 2000 MORGAN v CATHY ESPINOSA
20601 of 2000 MORGAN v MARGOT COOPER
20602 of 2000 MORGAN v DARREN HERBERT
20603 of 2000 MORGAN v MARGARET DEASY
20604 of 2000 MORGAN v TRALIE McMAIN

JUDGMENT


1   There are nine proceedings before the court. Each purports to propound an action in defamation. The proceedings are related. There are different defendants.

2   There are two plaintiffs in two of the proceedings. They are the first plaintiff (who describes herself as “Morgan” in the process) and her ten year old son (Ryan Peregrine). There seems to be little dispute that he is an unnecessary party to those proceedings.

3 As he is a disabled person, he has a need for a tutor [Pt 63 r 2 Supreme Court Rules 1970 (the Rules) ]. Although this problem was brought to the attention of the first plaintiff some time ago nothing has been done and/or is intended to be done to rectify the position. In the circumstances, I order that he cease to be a party in each of the two proceedings.

4   Morgan is the only plaintiff in the other proceedings. She is a litigant in person who has drafted her own process. It seems that the child was a kindergarten student at a public school in 1996. The defendants were staff members at the school at that time. The litigation arises out of incidents between Morgan and the staff.

5   The defendants have invited amendment to the process in each proceeding. In each matter, a letter dated 1 February 2001 has been sent to the first plaintiff (Exhibit 1). Each letter sets out the many pleading deficiencies relied on by the relevant defendant. Morgan takes the approach that she does not have the capacity to properly plead the claims and does not intend to amend the pleadings.

6 In each proceeding there is an application to strike out the Statement of Claim. The court is empowered to do this inter alia pursuant to Pt 15 r 26 of the Rules.

7 It is unnecessary to specifically deal with each of the many and various complaints as to the inadequacy of each pleading. Each pleading is seriously deficient. The failure to comply with the pleading rules is enormous (see Parts 15 and 67). Each is liable to be struck out.

8   It suffices to refer in general terms to just some of the problems which may be found in all of the pleadings. There are real problems in identifying the precise claim that is sought to be propounded. There is unintelligible material. There is annexed documentation which is not capable of conveying alleged imputations. There are alleged imputations which are simply not capable of being defamatory. Certain of the proceedings seek to propound the novel concept of conspiracy to defame.

9   The function of pleadings is to define and narrow the issues. Apart from inter alia the difficulties that have been mentioned, each Statement of Claim contains a significant volume of totally irrelevant material. If a party was required to plead to any of the Statements of Claim, the Defence necessarily would throw up a large number of irrelevant issues. Leaving aside the deficiencies as to disclosure of a reasonable cause of action, each pleading has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment and delay and is otherwise an abuse of process of the court.

10   In each proceeding, the only expedient course available to the court is to strike out the Statement of Claim in full.

11   Accordingly, the court makes the following orders that:-
1. Ryan Peregrine cease to be a party in proceedings No.20502 of 2000 and in 20531 of 2000;
2. In each of proceedings No.20502 of 2000, 20531 of 2000, 20598 of 2000, 20599 of 2000, 20600 of 2000, 20601 of 2000, 20602 of 2000, 20603 of 2000 and 20604 of 2000, the Statement of Claim is struck out;
3. In each of the proceedings, the first plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings to date;
4. The Exhibit may be returned.
**********

Last Modified: 08/08/2001