Plaintiff can replead, as his daughter suggested a possible cause of action
The Australian Capital Territory’s Supreme Court has struck out a statement of claim against the defendant, Canberra Metro Operations Pty Ltd, upon finding it impossible to discern a cause of action on the face of the present pleading.
In Wang v Canberra Metro Operations Pty Ltd [2025] ACTSC 531, the plaintiff was an elderly Chinese man with almost no English language skills. His daughter, who had advanced English language skills, prepared his claim against Canberra Metro.
The plaintiff alleged that a Canberra Metro employee treated him poorly for two days in January 2024. He asserted that the unfair treatment led the Australian Federal Police to arrest him and Canberra Metro to deprive him temporarily of access to its services.
The claim asserted defamation, negligence, tort, and discrimination. It specifically alleged:
Canberra Metro countered that the claim lacked merit and prospects of success or a viable claim against them. On 12 September 2025, Canberra Metro applied for orders to:
The plaintiff’s daughter received leave to appear on his behalf. According to her, despite her father’s extensive attempts to obtain legal representation to pursue his claim, he could not access legal aid or secure representation from the several personal injury law firms he contacted.
The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory struck out the statement of claim dated 5 August 2025, granted the plaintiff limited leave to replead, and asked him to exclude any claims for defamation or statutory discrimination due to a lack of a factual basis for such claims.
According to the court, in the pleading’s current form, Canberra Metro would struggle to respond meaningfully with a defence or identify clearly:
Ultimately, the court refused to deny leave to replead, which it considered an extraordinary step in circumstances where its dialogue with the daughter provided a basis for a summary of the plaintiff’s claim and supported the possible existence of a cause of action.
The court acknowledged that a self-represented claimant deserved some flexibility. However, the court noted that it should limit such flexibility to accommodate the interests of all litigants.
The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s application costs upon the conclusion of the proceeding.
