Legal Research
Cases
Vassallo v Deitz

Vassallo v Deitz

Case [2024] NSWSC 246 13 March 2024

Jurisdiction

Standing

Appeal

Discovery & Disclosure

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Vassallo v Deitz [2024] NSWSC 246
Hearing dates: 6 March 2024
Date of orders: 13 March 2024
Decision date: 13 March 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt AJ
Decision:
(1) The leave Mr Vassallo seeks is refused and the proceedings are dismissed; and
(2) The parties are directed to confer about costs and, if there is any dispute, to approach the Court within 14 days with short written submissions about the competing orders sought, advising if they wish to be heard further. Otherwise, they are to file consent orders.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – pleadings – self-represented litigant – whether leave to file amended summons should be granted – whether summons complies with requirements of Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) – whether summons discloses a reasonable cause of action – whether proceedings should be dismissed – leave refused – proceedings dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Civil Procedure Act2005 (NSW), s 56
Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act2001 (NSW), ss 53(2), 54(2)
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 (NSW), s 9.25(1)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 69 and 69B
Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW), s 7(3)(b)(i)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4(1), 21.10, 59.4

Cases Cited:
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41
Banque Commerciale SA (En Liqn) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11
Dare v Pulham (1982) 148 CLR 658; [1982] HCA 70
General Steel Industries v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Global Partners Fund Limited v Babcock & Brown Limited (In Liquidation) [2010] NSWSC 270
Leerdman v Noori (2009) 227 FLR 210; [2009] NSWCA 90
McGuirk v The University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
Simmons v New South Wales Trustee and Guardian [2014] NSWCA 405
Ugur v Attorney General for New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 86
Vassallo v Deitz [2023] NSWSC 1121

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Joseph Sid Vassallo (Plaintiff)
Lindy Deitz (First Defendant)
Michael John Weston (Second Defendant)
Local Court of New South Wales (Third Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Dr J Smith (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
Bartier Perry Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s): 2023/71776
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Mr Vassallo was convicted and fined in the Local Court under s 9.25(1) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act1979 (NSW) for an environmental offence involving his refusal to answer questions he was asked by an investigating officer employed by Campbelltown City Council during the investigation of an illegal burn off at his property at Wedderburn in NSW. Mr Vassallo had elected to have that charge dealt with by the Court. McLennan LCM was satisfied that the offence had been proven and Mr Vassallo was convicted and fined $3,000.
During the course of the hearing in the Local Court, his Honour noticed that Mr Vassallo was recording the proceedings, which he acknowledged, claiming he had not read signs, including one in the courtroom, which notified that…

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 Vassallo v Deitz

Details

AGLC: Vassallo v Deitz [2024] NSWSC 246
Case: [2024] NSWSC 246
Decision Date: 13 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vassallo v Deitz involved a self-represented litigant, Vassallo, who sought leave to file an amended summons against Deitz. The matter was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether Vassallo should be granted leave to amend the summons and whether the amended summons complied with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Additionally, the court had to determine whether the summons disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the proceedings should be dismissed.

The court considered whether the summons was sufficiently clear and precise, whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and whether the amendment would cause any undue delay or prejudice to the respondent. The court held that the original summons was deficient in several respects, failing to clearly articulate the cause of action and omitting essential details required by the rules. Despite the opportunity for amendment, the court found that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently address the deficiencies in the original summons. The court concluded that the summons did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and that granting leave to amend would not remedy these deficiencies.

Ultimately, the court refused leave to file the amended summons and dismissed the proceedings. The reasoning was that the proposed amendments did not sufficiently comply with the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and did not adequately disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court emphasised the importance of compliance with procedural rules, particularly for self-represented litigants, to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Orders