Home | © 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Abuse of process

C2C Developments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2012] NSWSC 1162. Macready Assoc J

It is clear that if the proceedings were brought for the predominate purpose of achieving same advantage for which they were not designed there is an abuse of process. See Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; [1992] 174 CLR 509.


Mimi's Fine Foods PL v Cimino & Anor [2011] NSWSC 158. White J.

[29] It is an abuse of process to institute proceedings with a predominant purpose of obtaining a collateral advantage outside the proper purpose for which the proceedings are designed.

It is not an abuse of process to bring proceedings for the purpose of pursuing them to a conclusion to obtain whatever entitlement or benefit the law provides if the proceedings are successful.

It is not an abuse to pursue a claim which has substance, even though the plaintiff is motivated by personal hostility or the hope of some indirect advantage, or compromise, if the plaintiff does not use fraudulent means: Williams v Spautz [1992] HCA 34; (1992) 174 CLR 509; Dowling v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1915] HCA 56; (1915) 20 CLR 509; Australian Beverage Distributors Pty Ltd v Redrock Co Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 966, 213 FLR 450.

Previous page: Words and phrases     Next page: Access

© 2019 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample