Saraceni v Mentha [No 2]

In the Supreme Court of Western Australia, the case of Saraceni v Mentha [No 2] involved a defamation action brought by Luke Saraceni against Mark Mentha, Scott Langdon, and Kordamentha Pty Ltd. The defendants applied to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, alleging that the amendments made without leave constituted an abuse of process and were not reasonably arguable. The court dismissed the application, finding that the amendments were reasonably arguable and did not amount to an abuse of process. The court also rejected the defendants' subsequent application for costs thrown away, finding that there was no evidence of wasted work.

In dismissing the interlocutory application by the defendants to strike out certain paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim, the Court found that the amendments made without leave were reasonably arguable and did not amount to an abuse of process. The Court rejected the defendants' primary contention that the amendments were an attempt to circumvent adverse repercussions arising from a previous decision in another case. The Court also found that the amendments were not made in bad faith and did not prejudice the defendants' ability to defend the action. The Court further found that the amendments did not render the defendants' defence pleas unusable, and that any need for the defendants to revise their defence pleading would not necessarily result in wasted costs.

In rejecting the defendants' subsequent application for costs thrown away, the Court found that there was no evidence of wasted work attributable to the plaintiff's amendments to his statement of claim. The Court noted that the defendants had not demonstrated any level of wasted preparatory work, and that the costs incurred by the defendants in responding to the amendments were not wasted in the true sense. The Court found that the defendants' claims for costs thrown away were misconceived and dismissed the application with costs.