The Court refused a self-represented plaintiff leave to file an amended statement of claim and struck out the existing pleading (except for a conceded claim), holding that the proposed pleading failed to identify valid causes of action, provide proper particulars, or comply with UCPR requirements despite multiple opportunities and judicial guidance. The Court confirmed that the tort of deceit requires identification of a false representation and the five Magill v Magill elements; that misfeasance in public office requires a public officer as defendant and particularised intentional wrongdoing; that conspiracy requires a pleaded agreement between conspirators; and that the ICAC Act does not create a private cause of action. The status of self-represented litigant does not entitle a party to a lower standard of compliance with pleading rules, though the only surviving claim — setting aside the defendant's concededly invalid decision of 9 July 2024 — remained on foot.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.