Pi v Zhou

[2015] NSWSC 744

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 744

Hearing dates:

11 June 2015

Date of orders:

11 June 2015

Decision date:

12 June 2015

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

Harrison J

Decision:

1. On the application of the defendants the statement of claim filed on 20 May 2015 is struck out.

 

2. Grant leave to the plaintiff, if so advised, to re-plead his cause or causes of action in a proper form, within 28 days.

 

3. Stand over the proceedings for directions before me on 9 July 2015 at 9.30am.

 4. Reserve the costs of and incidental to the hearing before me today.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – pleadings – statement of claim – application to strike out statement of claim pursuant to UCPR 14.28 – whether pleadings are embarrassing or otherwise fail to disclose a reasonable cause of action known to the law – application to re-plead in proper form

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005

Cases Cited:

Pi v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 324
Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 470

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Guang Hua Pi (Plaintiff)
Jian Cheng Zhou (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
J O’Connor (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2013/389177

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: By his statement of claim filed on 20 May 2015 the plaintiff seeks damages, as well as aggravated and exemplary damages, from the defendants under several categories of claim. These include nuisance, illegal eviction, assault and battery, property damage, trespass to goods, malicious falsehood and personal injury. Although it is not a universally reliable guide to the quality of the pleadings, I note that the statement of claim is more than 25 pages long.

2. Doing the best that I can, the several claims made by the plaintiff appear to have been generated by events that occurred in or about January 2011. In this last respect I also note that the plaintiff has commenced other proceedings, with which I dealt on 27 March 2015: see Pi v State of New South Wales [2015] NSWSC 324. Those proceedings are also concerned with an altercation on 12 January 2011 at premises known as 21 Moreton Street, Lakemba. That address also figures prominently in the events described by the plaintiff in the statement of claim in these proceedings.

3. The present proceedings recently came before McCallum J on 22 April 2015 on the application of the defendants to set aside a default judgment and other relief. Her Honour dealt with the application to set aside the default judgment but was unable in the time available to dispose of all issues: see Pi v Zhou [2015] NSWSC 470. The proceedings then came before me on 11 June 2015 for the purpose of dealing with the balance of the defendants’ notice of motion filed 4 March 2015. For presently relevant purposes, that motion sought the following orders:

(2) An order the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to UCPR 13.4.

(3) Alternatively to order (1), an order that the proceedings be dismissed pursuant to UCPR 12.7.

(4) Alternatively to orders (1) and (2), an order that summary judgment be given in favour of the defendants pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

(5) Alternatively, an order that the statement of claim be struck out pursuant to UCPR 14.28.

4. Having heard the parties, I indicated that I was proposing to make the following orders:

1. On the application of the defendants the statement of claim filed on 20 May 2015 is struck out.

2. I grant leave to the plaintiff, if so advised, to re-plead his cause or causes of action in a proper form, within 28 days.

3. I will stand over the proceedings for directions before me on 9 July 2015 at 9.30am.

4. I will reserve the costs of and incidental to the hearing before me today.

5. I indicated to the parties that I would provide reasons for my decision as soon as possible. Those reasons are as follows.

6. The statement of claim is a difficult document to comprehend. It is discursive, unstructured, clearly not prepared by or with the assistance of anyone with legal training and uses language that suggests its author’s first language is not English. The document is patently embarrassing and fails in any acceptable or reasonable way to formulate or plead a cause of action known to the law. It is prolix and confusing and not something to which any defendant could be expected to respond.

7. When dealing with the plaintiff’s other proceedings, and the defendant’s application to strike out his statement of claim, I said this at [11]:

“[11] I have no present confidence, considering the history of this matter so far, including the fact that the first plaintiff has been and remains unrepresented, that any orders that I may make for the efficient conduct of the proceedings from now on would be likely to prove effective. However, despite any misgivings that I may have, it seems apparent that the first plaintiff ought to be permitted on terms to prepare and serve an amended statement of claim if he wishes to do so. The inadequacies of the statements of claim to date should not be permitted to disguise the possibility that a cause of action known to the law might actually exist, currently lurking somewhere as yet undiscovered but potentially capable of proper formulation having regard to the circumstances of the case and the events that have occurred…”

8. It seems to me that I should cautiously adopt the same approach in these proceedings. The plaintiff’s statement of claim is definitively embarrassing, fails conspicuously to disclose any reasonable cause of action known to the law and is a document to which the defendants could not, and ought not to be required, to respond. In dealing with the plaintiff’s statement of claim in the other proceedings I said that it was

“[8]… patently embarrassing and fails in any acceptable or reasonable way to formulate or plead a cause of action known to the law. It is prolix and confusing and not something to which any defendant could be expected to respond.”

9. Those comments apply with equal force to the statement of claim in these proceedings.

10. I will give consideration to any proposed amendment to the statement of claim that the plaintiff wishes to propound when next the matter comes before me on 9 July 2015. I should indicate that I will treat the defendants’ application for orders with respect to the original statement of claim as applying to any proposed amended statement of claim that the plaintiff may wish to propound if I am asked to do so. That will obviate the need to file an amended notice of motion with attendant costs and seems to me to accord with the spirit and intent of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 and the overriding purpose of the just, quick and cheap disposition of litigation.

**********

Decision last updated: 12 June 2015