Stanizzo v Badarne - [2014] NSWSC 689

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Vincent Francis Stanizzo v Muhammad Badarne & Ors [2014] NSWSC 689
Hearing dates: 29 April 2014
Decision date: 29 May 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Robb J
Decision:
(1)Order under UCPR r 13.4 that the claims pleaded by the plaintiff against the first and second defendants, or one of them, in pars 30 to 49 and 62 to 78 of the statement of claim be summarily dismissed.
(2)Order under UCPR r 14.28 that the balance of the plaintiff's statement of claim be struck out as against the first and second defendants.
(3)Order under UCPR r 14.28 that the statement of claim be struck out as against the fourth defendant.
(4)Direct the plaintiff, if the plaintiff wishes to apply for leave to file an amended statement of claim in relation to the claims that have not summarily been dismissed by order (1) to serve on the first, second and fourth defendants, or so many of those defendants against whom the plaintiff wishes to continue his proceedings, a draft amended statement of claim by 4 PM on 19 June 2014.
(5)Direct each of the defendants upon whom the plaintiff serves a draft amended statement of claim to advise the plaintiff whether the defendant opposes the plaintiff being given leave to file the draft amended statement of claim, and if so the reasons for the opposition, by 4 PM on 3 July 2014.
(6)Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the first and second defendants in relation to the claims made in the paragraphs of the statement of claim referred to in order (1).
(7)Order the plaintiff to pay the costs of the first, second and fourth defendants of the notices of motion filed by them on 8 and 11 November 2013, including the hearing on 29 April 2014.
(8)Order that otherwise the costs of the proceedings to date be reserved.
(9)Stand the proceedings over for directions before Robb J on 9 July 2014 at 9:30 AM

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - summary dismissal - strike out - no material facts capable of supporting a cause of action
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - communications from parties to presiding judge's chambers - practice to be followed
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Akki Pty Ltd v Martin Hall Pty Ltd (1994 -1995) 35 NSWLR 470
Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2013] NSWSC 1971
R v Fisher [2009] VSCA; (2009) 22 VR 343
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Vincent Francis Stanizzo (plaintiff)
Muhammad Badarne (first defendant)
Good Legal Pty Ltd (second defendant)
Adbul Karim Charmand (third defendant)
Nasser Aouad (fourth defendant)
Representation: Counsel: In person (plaintiff)
Mr JR Young (first and second defendants)
Mr S Maybury (fourth defendant)
Solicitors: Justice Lawyers (plaintiff)
Good Legal Lawyers (first and second defendants)
HWL Ebsworth (fourth defendant)

File Number(s): 2013/291210

Judgment

The active parties in these proceedings are all solicitors.

The plaintiff is Mr Vincent Francis Stanizzo. The first defendant is…

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 Stanizzo v Badarne

Details

AGLC: Stanizzo v Badarne [2014] NSWSC 689
Case: [2014] NSWSC 689
Decision Date: 29 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanizzo v Badarne involved the plaintiff, Stanizzo, who brought an action against the defendant, Badarne, seeking damages for alleged defamation. The dispute centred on the plaintiff's claim that defamatory statements made by the defendant had harmed his reputation and resulted in financial losses. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg.

The legal issues that the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff's claims had any material facts capable of supporting a cause of action for defamation, and if not, whether the application for summary dismissal should be granted. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate procedure for handling communications from parties to the judge's chambers that raised issues of potential bias or fairness in the proceedings.

Justice Bromberg found that the plaintiff's claims lacked material facts that could substantiate a defamation action. The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established any prima facie case, and as a result, the application for summary dismissal was successful. Furthermore, the court considered the practice regarding communications from parties to the judge's chambers. The judge held that such communications should be handled with care to ensure the integrity of the judicial process, and established a protocol to manage such situations in future proceedings.

As a result of the court's findings, the plaintiff's action was dismissed with no order as to costs. Additionally, the court issued guidelines for parties to follow when communicating with the judge's chambers, aimed at maintaining the impartiality and fairness of the judicial process.

Orders