Sondakh v Herliman

The case of Sondakh v Herliman involved the plaintiff, Sondakh, filing an application for dismissal against the defendant, Herliman. The dispute centred around the plaintiff's ability to make out certain causes of action and the sufficiency of the pleadings, specifically whether the plaintiff's claims met the requirements for pleading actual knowledge. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the plaintiff's causes of action could be established as a matter of law and whether the pleadings were defective, particularly in relation to the standard of proof required to plead actual knowledge. The court had to assess the allegations in the plaintiff's statement of claim against the requirements set out in the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).

The court found that the plaintiff had not established that the claims could not be made out as a matter of law. It determined that the pleadings, although perhaps not perfect, did not fall short to the extent that they warranted dismissal. The court emphasised the need for a high threshold to be met for an application of this nature to succeed, particularly under rules 13.4(1) and 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The court concluded that the plaintiff's claims, while perhaps not framed in the most precise manner, were sufficient to proceed to trial. Therefore, the application for dismissal was dismissed.

The final order of the court was that the application for dismissal was to be dismissed with no orders as to costs.