APPEALS — Leave to appeal — Decision refusing leave to file amended statement of claim, summarily dismissing claim against second respondent and refusing referral to pro bono scheme — Significant deficiencies in proposed pleading — No issue of principle — No issue of public importance — No reasonably clear injustice — Leave to appeal refused
Quick Take
1A proposed pleading that is an amalgam of allegation, submission and observation, and which is repetitive, prolix, diffuse and fails to comply with the rules of pleading, imposes an unacceptable burden on respondents and justifies refusal of leave to file, regardless of whether a viable cause of action might theoretically be teased out of it.
2Where a party's role in impugned transactions was limited to acting as custodian of funds, the mere receipt and refund of money does not, without properly pleaded and particularised allegations of knowledge of or participation in an alleged fraudulent scheme, support a viable claim for unconscionable conduct under s 12CB of the ASIC Act or s 21 of the Australian Consumer Law, and s 12GH(2) attribution does not bridge that gap.
3The realistic quantum of damages is a key factor in determining whether to grant leave to appeal under s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), and claims ranging from the immaterial to the implausible weigh heavily against the grant of leave.
