Motion to Strike Out Defence Dismissed in NSW Supreme Court
⚖️ Legal holding
A defendant is entitled to plead facts in reliance on an affidavit, even if the facts are contestable.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The defendant can rely on an affidavit to plead facts, even if those facts are contestable.
- The court will not determine the reliability of evidence at the interlocutory stage; that is for the trial.
- The plaintiff's attempt to strike out the defense was fundamentally misconceived.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The plaintiff's claim that the paragraph of the defense is manifestly untrue and an abuse of process was rejected.
- The court dismissed the motion to strike out paragraph 14 of the defense, finding no basis to do so.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Court dismissed the motion to strike out the defence.
What was the dispute about?
The claimant sought to strike out part of the defence, arguing that it was manifestly untrue and an abuse of process.
Which laws or rules were applied?
No specific laws or rules were applied in this decision.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was whether the defence was manifestly untrue or an abuse of process.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should consider whether their arguments meet the standard for striking out a defence.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents that mattered included affidavits and correspondence between parties.