Griffiths v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 818

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Griffiths v State of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 818 Hearing dates: 13 June 2013 Decision date: 24 June 2013 Before: Barr AJ Decision: 1. The motion is dismissed. 2. I order the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs. Catchwords: PROCEDURE- pleadings- plaintiff seeks leave to file amended statement of claim-draft does not comply with Rules. Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Michael Richard Griffiths (Plaintiff) State of New South Wales (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Self-Represented (Plaintiff) S Spartalis (Defendant) Solicitors: Self-Represented (Plaintiff) Henry Davis York (Defendant) File Number(s): 2008/289711

Judgment 1This is a motion in which the plaintiff, Michael Richard Griffiths, seeks leave to file an amended Statement of Claim. The motion is opposed by the defendant, the State of New South Wales.

The Background 2The plaintiff began service as a police officer in 1975. On 24 August 2001 he applied for a discharge on medical grounds. On 29 August 2001 the Police Superannuation Advisory Committee decided that the plaintiff was incapable of discharging his duties and issued him with a certificate of incapacity that provided that his last day of service was 6 September 2001. The infirmity for which he was medically discharged was "lack of movement of both shoulders". The Committee determined that the plaintiff's infirmity was not caused by his having been hurt on duty. 3The plaintiff considered that his injuries, disabilities and loss were the responsibility of his employer, and on 11 December 2008 he filed a Statement of Claim in this Court. He was then represented by a firm of solicitors, Gerard Malouf & Partners. The Statement of Claim was served on the defendant and correspondence ensued between Henry Davis York, solicitors for the defendant, and Gerard Malouf & Partners. In a letter dated 15 January 2009, Henry Davis York submitted that as the plaintiff's claim was for personal injuries there was a three year limitation period, which had expired before the filing of the Statement of Claim. Henry Davis York also submitted that the plaintiff appeared to be asserting that the defendant had a duty of care which it had breached by medically discharging the plaintiff, but had not pleaded the duty relied on. Other matters were raised as well. 4On 10 July 2009 Gerard Malouf & Partners wrote enclosing an amended Statement of Claim. Henry Davis York wrote on 10 August and again on 11 September 2009 pointing out deficiencies and again drawing attention to the limitation period. They submitted that no duty of care had been pleaded and no breach of any specified duty. Other problems were raised. 5On 19 January 2010 Gerard Malouf & Partners sent a Notice of Ceasing to Act. 6On 5 March 2010 the plaintiff sent a further draft Amended Statement of Claim. It was a long document, extending over 42 pages omitting formal parts, and comprising 139 numbered paragraphs and many more unnumbered. On 9 March 2010 the plaintiff sent a signed copy, which contained different details. On 29 March Henry Davis York responded by letter, proposing that the amended statement of claim be repleaded and inviting the plaintiff to file a motion seeking leave to amend. The letter also drew the plaintiff's attention to some of the requirements of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for pleadings and asserting ways in which the proposed draft failed to comply. 7On 21 September 2010 the defendant filed a defence to the Statement of Claim. 8On 21 October 2010 the plaintiff served a further draft Amended Statement of Claim. On 11 November 2010 the defendant objected by letter setting out a number of specified reasons. 9On 20 March 2011 the plaintiff served a further draft Amended Statement of Claim and again objection was raised for reasons which were specified. 10On 12 August 2011 the plaintiff forwarded a draft and 1 September 2011 the defendant replied, raising objections. 11On 20 October 2012 the plaintiff sent a Further Draft and on 18 December 2012 the defendant replied, raising its objections. 12On 27 February 2013, the plaintiff served a further draft and on 8 March 2013 the defendant replied, raising objections. 13On 12 April 2013 the plaintiff served a further draft Amended Statement of Claim, the one he now proposes to rely on. The defendant wrote on 19 April 2013 setting out its objections in detail. 14During the course of these events the parties attended the Court for directions hearings on frequent occasions. 15As they stand, the pleadings comprise the Statement of Claim filed on 11 December 2008 and the Defence filed on 21 September 2010.