| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
COMMON LAW DIVISION
MAJOR TORTS LIST
S CI 2013 06264
| MILORAD TRKULJA (also known as MICHAEL TRKULJA) | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| GOOGLE LLC | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | John Dixon J |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 22 March 2019 |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 7 May 2019 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Trkulja v Google LLC (Ruling No. 2) |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2019] VSC 309 |
---
PLEADINGS – Application to further amend statement of claim – Whether pleading does not disclose a cause of action in respect of imputation – Whether pleading may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding – Application refused with further opportunity to amend – Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 r 23.02 .
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Plaintiff | Mr P Heywood-Smith QC | George Liberogiannis & Associates |
| For the Defendant | Ms L De Ferrari SC | Ashurst |
HIS HONOUR:
In this proceeding, commenced in 2013, the plaintiff applied for leave to file and serve a further amended statement of claim in the form of a second proposed further amended statement of claim dated 27 February 2019 (‘2PFASOC’) circulated between the parties. The application was opposed.
I start with a brief outline of the history of the pleading.
On 20 November 2018, I was satisfied that the plaintiff’s amended statement of claim (‘ASOC’) fell within r 23.02 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules2015. I struck out the ASOC and gave the plaintiff leave to re-plead his claim by submitting his proposed further amended statement of claim to the solicitors for Google LLC. Directions were given for the plaintiff to apply for leave to amend in the event that Google LLC refused its consent.
The plaintiff served a proposed further amended statement of claim dated 11 December 2018 (‘PFASOC’). Google LLC refused to consent to the amendment and on 31 January 2019, the plaintiff applied for leave to file and serve the PFASOC. On 7 February 2019, I refused that leave with published reasons.[1] I granted the plaintiff the opportunity to serve a second proposed further amended statement of claim on the defendant, with directions that the plaintiff apply for leave to amend in the event that Google LLC refused its consent.
The plaintiff served his 2PFASOC. Google LLC refused to consent to this further amended pleading and on 22 March 2019, the plaintiff applied for leave to file and serve the 2PFASOC. On that day, I announced that leave would not be granted for the reasons earlier articulated (because the 2PFASOC included passages that I had ruled out on prior occasions). There also was, I noted, elucidating discussion of the issues recorded on the transcripts of the hearings on 20 November 2018 and 31 January 2019. However, I stated that I would publish my reasons as soon as other commitments permitted me to do so. These are those reasons.
To briefly recap,…
Continue reading Trkulja v Google LLC (Ruling No. 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Trkulja v Google LLC (Ruling No. 2) [2019] VSC 309
- Case
- [2019] VSC 309
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the criteria for allowing further amendments to pleadings under the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015. The court noted that a plaintiff is not entitled to amend their pleadings as a matter of course and that the court must consider whether the amendment would prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding. The court also noted that the amendment must disclose a cause of action that is not frivolous or vexatious.
The court held that the proposed amendment did not disclose a cause of action in respect of the additional imputations. The court found that the additional imputations did not amount to defamation as they were not capable of lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society. The court also found that the proposed amendment might prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding as it would require the defendant to defend additional claims that had not been previously raised. However, the court granted the plaintiff an opportunity to further amend his statement of claim to include additional imputations that did disclose a cause of action.
The court refused the application to further amend the statement of claim but granted the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the pleadings to include additional imputations that did disclose a cause of action. The court ordered that the plaintiff file an amended statement of claim within 28 days of the date of the judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.