70104 Study Guide - Final Guide: Inherent Jurisdiction, New Approach, Vexatious Litigation
Document Summary
Where a party applied to the court to dispose of the claim summarily because of the defi(cid:272)ie(cid:374)(cid:272)(cid:455) i(cid:374) the opposi(cid:374)g pa(cid:396)t(cid:455)(cid:859)s (cid:272)ase. The traditional test (still applies is nsw): (cid:858)no (cid:396)eal (cid:395)uestio(cid:374) to (cid:271)e t(cid:396)ied(cid:859) nsw. The test has been variously expressed, including (cid:858)so o(cid:271)viousl(cid:455) u(cid:374)te(cid:374)a(cid:271)le that it (cid:272)a(cid:374)(cid:374)ot possi(cid:271)l(cid:455) su(cid:272)(cid:272)eed,(cid:859) (cid:858)(cid:373)a(cid:374)ifestl(cid:455) g(cid:396)ou(cid:374)dless(cid:859): general steel industries inc v. General steel industries inc v commissioner of railways (nsw) (1964) 112 clr 125. The defendant sought to set aside statement of claim or alternatively to stay proceedings on the grounds that the plaintiff did not disclose a reasonable or any cause of action. The test to be applied has been variously expressed; "so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed"; "so manifestly faulty that it does not admit of argument"; "discloses a case which the court is satisfied cannot succeed"; "under no possibility can there be a good cause of action"; "be manifest that to allow them" (the pleadings)
