Karlsson v Griffith University [2020] NSWSC 365

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Karlsson v Griffith University [2020] NSWSC 365 Hearing dates: 14 February 2020 Date of orders: 07 April 2020 Decision date: 07 April 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Wright J Decision: (1) Leave to file the proposed further amended statement of claim dated 21 October 2019 is refused.

(2) Pursuant to r 13.4(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the proceedings are dismissed.

(3) The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, in addition to the costs ordered to be paid by Adamson J on 1 October 2019, on the ordinary basis as agreed or assessed.

(4) The plaintiff's amended notice of motion filed on 10 December 2019 and the defendant's notice of motion filed on 2 December 2019 are otherwise dismissed. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Leave sought to file proposed amended pleading – Abuse of process – No reasonable cause of action – Tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay – Where proposed pleading embarrassing and disclosed no reasonable cause of action – Leave to file proposed amended pleading refused

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Summary disposal – Dismissal of proceedings – Frivolous or vexatious proceedings –Abuse of process – No reasonable cause of action disclosed – Where demands made for payment in settlement of matter before proceedings commenced – Where plaintiff unlikely ever to be able to plead a reasonable cause of action – Where defendant required to incur expense in defending proceedings – Proceedings dismissed

CIVIL PROCEDURE – Inherent power – Abuse of process – Whether orders prohibiting plaintiff from commencing new proceedings dealing with same subject matter without leave appropriate – Whether commencement of new proceedings should be conditional on payment of costs of earlier proceedings – Orders not made Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2 – Australian Consumer Law Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Banque Commerciale SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11 Council of Trinity Grammar School v Anderson [2019] NSWCA 292 Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1 Dowling v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd (1915) 20 CLR 509 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner of Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69 Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v Mount Oxide Mines Ltd. (In Liq) (1916) 22 CLR 490; [1916] HCA 81 Horton v Jones (No. 2) (1939) 39 SR(NSW) 305; [1939] 56 WN (NSW) 161 Jeffery & Katauskas Pty Ltd v SST Consulting Pty Ltd (2009) 239 CLR 75; [2009] HCA 43 Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2012] VSCA 97 Karlsson v Griffith University [2019] NSWSC 1335 McKellar v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd [1999] FCA 110; (1999) 165 ALR 409 Nguyen v QTQ Mechanical Services Pty Ltd [2019] NSWSC 1629 Patrick Jebb as trustee for the Trafalgar West Investments Trust v Superior Lawns Australia Pty Ltd [2019] WASC 121 Perera v Genworth Financial Mortgage Insurance Pty Ltd (2017) 94 NSWLR 83; [2017] NSWCA 19 Phillip Morris Ltd v Attorney General of Victoria (2006) 14 VR 538; [2006] VSCA 21 Regie Nationale des Usines Renault SA & Anor v Zhang (2002) 210 CLR 491; [2002] HCA 10 Ridgeway v the Queen (1995) 184 CLR 19; [1995] HCA 66 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42 Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28 Szanto v Bainton [2011] NSWSC 985 UBS AG v Tyne [2018] HCA 45; (2018) 92 ALJR 968 Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509; [1992] HCA 34 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Annika Karlsson (Plaintiff) Griffith University (Defendant) Representation: Plaintiff in person