The Court held that r 23.02 of the Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT) empowers the Court to strike out or amend an endorsement of claim on an originating motion, not only pleadings on writs, distinguishing NSW authorities which turned on differently worded rules. The Court further held that even where proceedings are properly commenced by originating motion rather than writ, the endorsement of claim must state the legal basis for the claim, the material facts, and the relief sought with sufficient particularity to apprise the defendant of the case to be met and establish boundaries for evidence and relief — a bare prayer for declaratory relief without identifying the mechanism, occasion and quantum of alleged unlawfulness is deficient. The question whether maintaining individual proceedings for declaratory relief while remaining a group member in a Federal Court representative proceeding after the opt-out period constitutes an abuse of process was left unresolved, with the Court noting the prima facie vexatiousness of such overlap but deferring final determination until the plaintiffs properly particularised their claims.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.