I have previously reported on the case of Ms Davis, a paramedic formerly employed by Ambulance Victoria but now seeking remedies in excess of $5 million for unfair dismissal – see Self-represented paramedic’s application dismissed (February 7, 2025). Ms Davis’ application was dismissed but as I said in that earlier post

…  because Ms Davies was un-represented and she ‘should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to put her case’ the Court did give permission to allow her to refile her claim hopefully taking into account the advice from the Court, and from Ambulance Victoria (at [31]) to accurately identify what she is alleging and to link her allegations to relevant law.

The saga does not end well for Ms Davis in Davies v Ambulance Victoria (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 2024.  

Ms Davis did file a new statement of claim but again she failed to comply with the rules or make it clear what case Ambulance Victoria were required to answer. His Honour, Champion J, found that the revised statement of claim still did not comply with the relevant rules.  His Honour said (at [82]-[83]):

I repeat the issue is not length of the Third SOC per se [ie ‘68 pages long and comprises 102 paragraphs’ ([46])]. The issue is that the Third SOC does not give the opposing party fair notice of the case to be made against that party at trial …. Each paragraph of it does not as far as practicable deal with a separate matter… It contravenes r. 13.03(3)(d) because it is prolix and its narrative form is a mixture of argument, submission and cross-reference and is therefore “likely to cause “prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding”.

I accept the Respondent’s characterisation of the Third SOC as embarrassing, confusing and prejudicial.

And at [87]:

Despite being shorter than the Second SOC [Statement of Claim], Ms Davies’ Third SOC continues to suffer fatally from “narrative, prolixity, and irrelevancies”. It proceeds on the basis that Ms Davies’ case is a broad enquiry as to whether the applicant has been procedurally or substantively unfairly treated. It requires an “atlas to expose” the claims advanced. Crucially, it does not give the opposing party fair notice of the case to be made against it in accordance with r. 13.03(2)(c) which is an essential function of a pleading. It is not (reasonably) possible for Ambulance Victoria to draft a pleading in defence to it.

Ms Davis had been given many opportunities to get her case in order. His Honour said (at [95]) ‘this matter has now been on foot in this Court for approximately 18 months and Ms Davies has not been in a position to file a statement of claim that fairly sets out the case the Respondent is to meet and which enables the timetabling of necessary steps to move the proceeding forward to a trial.’ In the circumstances the court ordered that Ms Davis claim was to be struck out with no further opportunity to replead her claim. 

Discussion

Lawyers may be expensive but if a person really thinks they have a multi-million dollar claim it would be worth investing in legal advice in order to understand whether the claim is sustainable and, if it is, to get it before a court in proper form.  

In this case His Honour was mindful of the disadvantage suffered by unrepresented litigants and the need to make allowance for their inexperience. His Honour was also aware of the significant consequences of dismissing the claim (see [99]).  But even an unrepresented litigant must comply with the rules. In this case ‘Ms Davies’ Third SOC does not comply with the Rules. Its non-compliance with the Rules is a matter of substance, not form. The non-compliance is causing ongoing expense and delay to the Respondent and in the preparation of this matter for trial’ ([103]).  Despite the efforts of the court and the respondent’s solicitors to try and identify the issues and explain what was required she ‘has not been able to prepare a statement of claim that complies with the Rules’ ([102]). The result is that her case is lost.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.