SARACENI -v- MENTHA [2013] WASC 95 (S)

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2013] WASC 95 (S)
Case No:	CIV:2734/2012	Heard:	ON THE PAPERS
Coram:	KENNETH MARTIN J	Delivered:	25/06/13
No of pages:	5	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Taxed costs ordered in favour of defendants
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LUKE SARACENI MARK MENTHA SCOTT LANGDON KORDAMENTHA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Costs Strike out applications Plaintiff's imputations deficient Cost orders Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Saraceni v Mentha [2013] WASC 95

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : SARACENI -v- MENTHA [2013] WASC 95 (S) CORAM : KENNETH MARTIN J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 25 JUNE 2013 FILE NO/S : CIV 2734 of 2012 BETWEEN : LUKE SARACENI

Plaintiff

AND

MARK MENTHA

First defendant

SCOTT LANGDON

Second defendant

KORDAMENTHA PTY LTD

Third defendant

Catchwords:

Costs - Strike out applications - Plaintiff's imputations deficient - Cost orders - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

(Page 2)

Result:

Taxed costs ordered in favour of defendants

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : No appearance

First defendant : No appearance

Second defendant : No appearance

Third defendant : No appearance

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Bennett + Co

First defendant : Norton Rose Australia

Second defendant : Norton Rose Australia

Third defendant : Norton Rose Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Saraceni v Mentha [2013] WASC 95

(Page 3)

1 KENNETH MARTIN J: Subsequent to publication of my reserved reasons on the mutual strike out applications by the parties against their respective pleadings in this defamation action, the parties remain in disagreement over the appropriate costs outcomes for the applications. This resulted in the parties requesting the issue of costs be resolved on the papers, with each side to file written submissions to support their conflicting positions.

2 There followed the plaintiff's written submissions of 13 May 2013 and the defendants' submissions of 20 May 2013. The defendants also filed an affidavit of Dylan Christopher McKimmie of 20 May 2013, in support of their position.

3 In my reserved reasons I concluded at [91]:

Conclusion

The plaintiff's imputations will be struck out with leave to amend. On balance, the defendants have been substantially successful in this application on the major issue that occupied the Court's time and prima facie should have their taxed costs of the application. If the parties are unable to agree upon a minute of orders then the defendants should provide their minute of orders of the court within 14 days of publication of these reasons.

4 The defendants' written submissions seek to entrench the prima facie taxed costs outcome favourable to them I foreshadowed for the applications. The defendants say they were substantially successful on the major pleading issue which underlay both strike out applications - namely, the common conceptual flaw in formulation of two of the plaintiff's (three) imputations - drawn as tied to the so-called 'joint financiers of a Vasse Newtown project': see Saraceni v Mentha

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Saraceni v Mentha

Details

AGLC: Saraceni v Mentha [2013] WASC 95 (S)
Case: [2013] WASC 95 (S)
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Mentha, applied to strike out the plaintiff, Saraceni's, statement of claim. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had acted negligently, causing him to lose his employment. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to decide whether the plaintiff's statement of claim was sufficient to enable the defendants to respond to the allegations made. The court also needed to determine whether the plaintiff's imputations against the defendants were deficient and whether the application should be struck out.

The court held that the plaintiff's statement of claim was deficient as it did not provide sufficient detail to enable the defendants to respond to the allegations. The court also found that the plaintiff's imputations against the defendants were deficient as they were based on assumptions and not facts. The court held that the application should be dismissed as the deficiencies were not fatal to the plaintiff's claim. However, the court held that the application for costs should be allowed as the plaintiff's imputations were deficient, and the application was brought without merit. The court held that the application for costs turned on its own facts and was not a matter of general principle.

The court ordered that taxed costs be paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff's application was brought without merit and that the defendants were entitled to costs. The court held that the amount of costs should be determined by the taxing master. The court held that the plaintiff's application was not frivolous, and the defendants were not entitled to exemplary costs. The court held that the amount of costs should be reasonable and proportionate to the work done.

Orders

Orders of the court

Taxed costs ordered in favour of defendants

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.