Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Foreman v Life Style Solutions Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 332 Hearing dates: 27 March 2019 Decision date: 27 March 2019 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: R A Hulme J Decision: 1. Application to strikeout pleadings and particulars as set out in Notice of Motion filed 21 November 2018 granted. 2. Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the proceedings to date (including those of 8 February 2019). 3. Any application by plaintiff for pro bono legal assistance to be brought by filing and serving Notice of Motion by 29 April 2019. 4. Stood over to Registrar's call over on 7 May 2019. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings and particulars — Striking out – Grossly deficient – Self-represented litigant – Opportunity given to apply for pro bono legal assistance Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 14.28 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Laurence Foreman (Plaintiff) Life Style Solutions Pty Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff self-represented Ms Robb-Juvcic for the defendant Solicitors: Laycock Burke Castaldi Lawyers File Number(s): 2018/231013 Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: In this matter there is a statement of claim that was filed by the plaintiff on 27 July 2018. It appears to relate to a complaint about work place bullying, intimidation and harassment the plaintiff says he has been subjected to by employees of the defendant. 2. There has been correspondence from the solicitor for the defendants, virtually from the outset, setting out deficiencies in the pleadings, subsequently seeking particulars. The upshot is, despite much patience and much assistance that has been provided by the solicitor for the defendant to the unrepresented plaintiff, all attempts to obtain pleadings that are sufficiently clear and comply with the rules, and particulars that are sufficient to put the defendant on notice of the nature of the case it is required to meet, even as to basic matters such as what is the cause of action, have failed. The defendant unsurprisingly has moved on a motion to strike out the pleadings and much of the particulars pursuant to r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). 3. Mr Foreman, the plaintiff, has appeared with the assistance of another gentleman here today, Mr Vincent Santos, and it is apparent to me that they both suffer from a lack of understanding of the nature of the application and what is relevant to it. But there seems to be an acceptance at long last that the complaints of the defendant have merit, in that the pleadings and the particulars are grossly deficient. Even with recasting and clarification they remain quite incomprehensible. But, mindful of the fact that the plaintiff is unrepresented, the defendant would be relieved to have him at long last concede the deficiencies, but it is also prepared to countenance the plaintiff being given an opportunity to seek some legal assistance. 4. Mr Foreman indicated earlier today that he cannot afford legal representation. He said that he has approached Legal Aid NSW and has also been referred to lawyers by someone at the University of Western Sydney. All of that has been to no avail. 5. In respect of persons in the position of the plaintiff who do not have legal assistance, the Court will sometimes entertain an application for referral to the pro bono assistance panel. The plaintiff has indicated that he would be willing to make an application for such assistance. The defendant, with similar fairness and candour with which it appears to have conducted the proceedings to date, is content to allow that to be considered without pressing its previously foreshadowed opposition to the plaintiff being given an opportunity to replead. 6. In my view, it would be appropriate to allow the plaintiff a last chance to put his pleadings in order. I do not know whether he has a viable case or not; that is not a matter that is relevant to the proceedings before the Court today. I consider that he should be allowed an opportunity to seek some legal assistance by way of referral under the pro bono scheme, at least insofar as the formulation of pleadings and particulars in this case are concerned. 7. The defendant would have been quite within its rights to take the position that enough is enough. But the concession it has made to allow the plaintiff some further latitude is generous and responsible and it should be commended for that. 8. I make the following orders: 1. Application to strikeout pleadings and particulars as set out in Notice of Motion filed 21 November 2018 granted. 2. Plaintiff to pay defendant's costs of the proceedings to date (including those of 8 February 2019). 3. Any application by plaintiff for pro bono legal assistance to be brought by filing and serving Notice of Motion by 29 April 2019. 4. Stood over to Registrar's call over on 7 May 2019. 1. I record for future reference the following that was said by Mr Santos, seemingly on behalf of the plaintiff, after I made the orders indicated above: SANTOS: Your Honour, thank your Honour for your Honour's all I wanted to say is that, what if we engage a law firm to draft the pleadings and resubmit to the Court? Would that be okay to the Court? HIS HONOUR: That would be fine. SANTOS: That's what we are planning to do, have a law firm to draft HIS HONOUR: I thought Mr Foreman could not afford lawyers. SANTOS: We could try, because he should have I know why the plaintiff defendant is behaving like this, because he knew I'm not yet admitted. HIS HONOUR: No, no, no. Mr Santos, no. SANTOS: And if they had been drafted by a barrister, if they had been drafted by a law firm, he wouldn't be able to behave like this. ROBB VUJCIC: Can I make a short point, your Honour? If it was possible for the plaintiff to have engaged a law firm and done this properly earlier, then perhaps we would have been a little bit firmer in saying there shouldn't be too many more opportunities to replead. HIS HONOUR: That will be specifically noted and it might become relevant in the future. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 March 2019