Sahid v Brydens Lawyers

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Sahid v Brydens Lawyers [2025] NSWDC 335

Hearing dates:

7 and 31 July 2025

Date of orders:

25 August 2025

Decision date:

25 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Before:

Cole DCJ

Decision:

(1) The Defendant’s amended Notice of Motion filed on 28 May 2025 is dismissed.

(2) The costs of the motion are to be costs in the cause.

(3) The plaintiff has leave to rely on her affidavit of 28 July 2025 in the substantive proceedings.

(4) The plaintiff may not rely on further evidence without the leave of the Court.

(5) The proceedings are listed for directions before the Judicial Registrar on 15 September 2025 to fix a date for the hearing of the matter.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Originating process — application for summary dismissal – alternatively, application for orders setting aside the statement of claim

Legislation Cited:

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Agius v New South Wales [2001] NSWCA 371

Clarke v GEO Australia Pty Ltd [2023] NSWSC 716

Dickson v Chaffey & Reddawn [2012] NSWSC 336

Findlay v Victoria [2009] VSCA 294

Martin v Gill [2025] NSWSC 385

O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Limited [2013] NSWCA 71

Richmond Valley Council v JLT Risk Solutions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1761

Salmon v Albarran (2023) 414 ALR 36; [2023] NSWSC 1238

Simmons v NSW Trustee and Guardian [2014] NSWCA 405

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Nazrana Sahid (Plaintiff)
Brydens Lawyers (Defendant)

Representation:

Counsel:
S Sykes (Defendant)

Solicitors:
A Sarfraz (Plaintiff)
Mills Oakley (Defendant)

File Number(s):

2024/133189

Publication restriction:

Nil

JUDGMENT

1. The defendant, Brydens Lawyers, applied by Notice of Motion on 28 May 2025 to have these proceedings summarily dismissed pursuant to rule 13.4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘the UCPR’). In the alternative, the defendant seeks to have the statement of claim struck out pursuant to rule 14.28 of the UCPR.

2. The plaintiff, Ms Sahid, opposes the defendant’s application.

Rule 13.4 and 14.28

3. The UCPR say, in r 13.4:

13.4   Frivolous and vexatious proceedings

(1)  If in any proceedings it appears to the court that in relation to the proceedings generally or in relation to any claim for relief in the proceedings—

(a)  the proceedings are frivolous or vexatious, or

(b)  no reasonable cause of action is disclosed, or

(c)  the proceedings are an abuse of the process of the court,

the court may order that the proceedings be dismissed generally or in relation to that claim.

(2)  The court may receive evidence on the hearing of an application for an order under subrule (1).

4. The UCPR say, in r 14.28:

14.28   Circumstances in which court may strike out pleadings

(1)  The court may at any stage of the proceedings order that the whole or any part of a pleading be struck out if the pleading—

(a)  discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence or other case appropriate to the nature of the pleading, or