Mary v State of New South Wales

HIS HONOUR: These proceedings were originally commenced by summons dated 4 April 2025. The plaintiff later filed a statement of claim in court on 27 June 2025 naming the State as the sole defendant.

By its notice of motion filed on 25 July 2025, the State moves the Court for orders either dismissing the proceedings pursuant to UCPR 13.4(1) or alternatively striking out the pleading pursuant to UCPR 14.28(2). In my opinion, the Statement of Claim is currently on life support and requires an urgent transfusion. However, for the reasons that follow, I consider that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to replead her case in proper form.

By way of background, the events which give rise to these proceedings would appear to have occurred on or around 12 and 13 August 2022. My understanding in that respect derives from two sources.

First, under the heading "Relief Claimed", the statement of claim refers to what are described as "the tortious acts on 13 August 2022". Paragraph 3 of the pleading mentions that date in these terms:

Paragraph 19 of the statement of claim also refers to that date and to the existence of "contemporaneous and unaltered video footage captured by [the plaintiff's] own device".

Finally, paragraph 25 of the Statement of Claim refers to the incident of 13 August 2022. The latter part of that paragraph also refers to former Senior Constable Rani Hulme.

The second source of information about the events on 13 August 2022 is an affidavit affirmed by former Senior Constable Hulme on 3 November 2025. I have marked that document for identification in this application. Former Senior Constable Hulme's affidavit is therefore a source of information about what happened on 13 August 2022. However, I wish to make it clear when referring to that affidavit as a source of what might have occurred on that date, that I should not be understood to have concluded or assumed that the plaintiff, who is unrepresented, either accepts or agrees with anything to which former Constable Hulme has deposed, either in whole or in part.

From all of this material it appears tolerably clear in general terms that on 13 August 2022, the plaintiff travelled to XX Tasman Road, St George's Basin in an attempt to visit her children who lived there with their father, Mr Murrin. The plaintiff and Mr Murrin had previously been in a relationship but were at this time separated and engaged in apparently unpleasant, or at least highly contested, proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. Shortly after the plaintiff's arrival at that address, someone called 000 and reported what I will neutrally describe as a disturbance. Former Senior Constable Hulme and Constable Adams responded to that 000 call and attended the premises shortly thereafter. In due course, the officers directed the plaintiff to accompany them to the Bay and Basin Police Station to obtain an Apprehended Domestic Violence Order. It is these events described only in the barest terms about which I understand the plaintiff now complains.

Unfortunately, the statement of claim upon which the plaintiff relies is almost completely silent about these details or what is alleged to have happened on that day. It offers no specific description of the type to which former Constable Hulmes' affidavit refers. On the contrary, the plaintiff has only pleaded a series of complaints and given descriptions of what amount to a number of legal conclusions but not in a way that articulates or formulates anything vaguely amounting to a properly pleaded, recognisable or legitimate cause of action. The document is in those circumstances vulnerable to being struck out.

It is equally clear on one view of the facts that the plaintiff has what she considers to be a genuine grievance that she wishes this Court to resolve. In so saying I should emphasise that not all of the matters that trouble the plaintiff are amenable to adjudication in this court. That is as may be. It seems to me, however, in the circumstances to which I have referred, that the plaintiff should be given a further opportunity, if so advised, to plead her case in proper form in accordance with the rules. She is neither a lawyer nor is she presently in receipt of legal advice. Preparation of a statement of claim in proper form would in my experience require at least some assistance from a trained barrister or solicitor if access to such advice were available and could be arranged. If the statement of claim is to be repleaded, I consider that the plaintiff should be referred to the Law Society and/or Bar Association for pro bono legal assistance pursuant to UCPR 7.36. I propose to make such a recommendation and to direct these reasons to the Principal Registrar of the Court with a view to doing so.

In the circumstances, I will make the following orders: