Mariotti v Wanneroo North Pty Ltd

[2008] WASCA 243

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Dismissal of proceedings
4. › Deliberate plan to abort trial
5. › Wilful disobedience of court orders
6. › Contumacious conduct
7. › Whether dismissal of action justified
8. › Protection of court processes
9. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Case management
3. › Non-compliance with court orders
4. › Whether case management principles from J L Holdings preclude dismissal where non-compliance is deliberate and contumacious
5. › Distinction between inadvertent non-compliance and deliberate abuse
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal from discretionary decision
3. › Principles in House v The King
4. › Whether trial judge failed to apply established principles
5. › Whether trial judge failed to balance competing considerations

Quick Take

The principles in J L Holdings do not protect a litigant whose non-compliance with court orders is deliberate and part of a concerted plan to abort a trial; such conduct gives rise to significant additional considerations beyond case management principles, including the need to protect court processes and deter abuse. No peremptory or springing order is required before dismissal where the litigant has already engaged in a deliberate, planned course of conduct designed to abort the trial.