On 19 September 2025, a Florida Federal Judge dismissed Donald Trump’s 85-page defamation complaint against The New York Times, describing it as “tedious and burdensome.” The judge gave Trump 28 days to file a shorter complaint, limited to 40 pages, under the United States Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 (‘FRCP’), which requires a short and plain statement of the claim. The case offers a useful comparison when considering embarrassing and vague pleadings in NSW, where courts also expect clarity and precision in line with the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (‘UCPR’). Like the US system, NSW procedural rules aim to ensure pleadings are concise, focused, and easy to answer, preventing wasted time and cost in litigation.
What is an “embarrassing” or “vague” pleading in NSW?
The Dictionary in rule 1.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (‘UCPR’) defines “pleading” to include a Statement of Claim, Defence, Reply, and any subsequent pleading, but not a Summons or Notice of Motion.
In practice, an “embarrassing” pleading makesa fair reply hard. It’s unclear, argues instead of stating facts, tells long stories or gossip, and mixes up facts, evidence and legal arguments. When the Court strikes out text for those reasons, it does not decide who should win. The point is to set some ground rules, so the case runs fairly and without wasting money.
Judges commonly instruct parties on what to correct and set a deadline to re-plead. Suppose a statement of claim reads like an essay about corporate history and personalities before it finally hints at an unpaid debt. In that case, the Court will direct the plaintiff to remove unnecessary background and clearly state the key facts – the contract terms, the amount owed, the due date, what was paid, what remains unpaid, and whether interest applies.. That approach fits the Court’s case-management obligations, and the pleading duties set out below.
When do NSW courts dismiss a case early?
Dismissal under UCPR rule 13.4 is different in kind and consequence. It addresses substance. The Court may dismiss a case or a specific claim if it lacks a proper legal basis, is clearly without merit, or misuses the court process. Where a claim cannot possibly succeed on the pleaded facts, there is no utility in sending it to trial.
The threshold for early termination is strict. In General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69, the High Court held that a matter should be ended only when it is “so obviously untenable that it cannot possibly succeed.” If any genuine issue exists that is suitable for trial, the Court should not order dismissal at this stage.
Understanding the difference between strike-out and dismissal helps clients determine their next steps. If your pleading is struck out, you can usually fix it and file it again. But if your claim is dismissed, that’s often the end of the road -and you might have to pay the other side’s costs.
For example, if you plead a breach of contract but include no facts showing a contract existed, the Court will likely strike out the pleading. You’ll usually be given leave to re-plead. But suppose you openly admit there was no contract at all and still ask for a contract remedy. In that case, the Court is more likely to dismiss the claim for having no legal basis.
Where does summary judgment under UCPR Rule 13.1 fit?
Under UCPR rule 13.1, a plaintiff may seek summary judgment if the evidence proves the claim. The rule requires that the defendant has no real defence. The test is strict but practical.
If a genuine issue needs witness evidence, the Court will not grant summary judgment. In that case, the matter will continue as usual. If the defendant has no real defence, the Court may grant judgment early. This can occur even if the amount of damages is yet to be decided.
The duties that keep pleadings out of trouble
The UCPR tells parties what a good pleading looks like. Rule 14.7 requires a summary of material facts, not the evidence by which those facts will be proved. However, Rule 14.8 says the pleading must be as brief as the nature of the case allows. Rule 15.1 requires particulars so that the opponent can understand the case to be met, and rule 15.10 empowers the Court to order further details if something is too vague. These duties exist to define issues, avoid surprise, and help the Court manage the case efficiently. The Bench Book chapter on pleadings and particulars ties these rules together and explains when further details are appropriate.
Used properly, these rules keep a case on track. Write one important fact per paragraph. Don’t include legal arguments or evidence. If background is needed, add just one clear sentence. If the other side asks for particulars (extra details they need to understand your claim), please let them know.
Case management and the Civil Procedure Act: “just, quick, and cheap” purpose
Its main aim is to resolve the fundamental issues fairly, quickly, and at low cost. Judges and parties must work towards that aim, and the court uses case-management powers to keep things on track. If a pleading is too long, unclear, or full of things that don’t matter, it gets in the way. The court can ask for extra details, order you to cut parts out, or—if the claim has no factual basis—dismiss it.
The Act is not about impatience, it is about proportion. The Court’s job is to run the case at a pace and cost that suit what the dispute is about. Keeping pleadings short and clear helps make that happen.
They reduce the scope of discovery and evidence, narrow the issues for the hearing, and make mediation more productive. From a client’s perspective, that discipline saves money and time.
How an 85-page “Trump-style” complaint would go in NSW
In NSW, an 85-page complaint packed with storytelling and commentary would almost certainly face a strike-out bid under rule 14.28. A judge would likely say it’s too long and unfocused, cut the irrelevant or wordy bits, and order a shorter, fact-focused re-plead within a page limit. If, after trimming to its best facts, the claim still has no real chance, the other side can ask the Court to dismiss it under rule 13.4.
A short, practical US–NSW comparison
US: FRCP rule 8 says a pleading must be a “short and plain statement.” Courts can cut back sprawling or argumentative complaints. Rule 12(b)(6) lets a court dismiss a case that doesn’t state a proper legal claim.
NSW: The courts reach the same goal with local rules. If a pleading is too vague, too long, or confusing, the Court can strike it out under rule 14.28 and let you re-plead. If the whole claim clearly has no legal basis, it can be dismissed under rule 13.4.
Bottom line: Different rule numbers, same destination—short, clear pleadings and efficient litigation
Practical illustrations without the jargon
Consider a debt recovery claim where the statement of claim devotes pages to meeting histories and business commentary, then mentions an unpaid invoice only near the end. If those essentials are pleaded and genuinely in dispute, the case moves forward. If the pleading admits there was no agreement but still asks for a contract remedy, the Court is likely to dismiss it.
A cautious tone in applications
When asking the Court for early relief, it’s best to keep the language measured. For example, it is usually better to say a pleading may be struck out for being too long, rather than stating it must be. It is also better to state that the Court may dismiss a claim if it lacks a legal basis, rather than asserting the Court has no choice. That tone aligns with the authorities. Strike-out is generally a remedial step. Summary judgment is reserved for clear cases where there is genuinely no real defence on the material before the Court. Keeping those calibrations in view is part of running a case well.
What to do next if you are drafting or reviewing a pleading
Start with the elements of your claim or defence. Identify the material facts that engage those elements and write them down as short, numbered paragraphs. Leave out the argument and evidence. Read back and ask whether a person new to the file could identify the issue to be tried. If not, cut and clarify. If the other side seeks particulars that are genuinely needed, provide them promptly. There is almost always better value in an amendment than in interlocutory skirmishes about drafting.
When a pleading that reads like a novel, consider whether a request for particulars or a strike-out application would achieve more than filing a long defensive pleading in reply. If the pleading is so defective that you cannot sensibly answer it, say so and propose a practical way forward. If the claim appears untenable even on its best pleaded facts, consider an application for dismissal under rule 13.4 at an early stage.
Conclusion
In NSW, the Court will strike out defective material and usually allow you to fix it. Where a claim cannot possibly succeed on the pleaded facts, the Court can dismiss it. Plaintiffs with truly open-and-shut cases may consider summary judgment. If you are unsure about your pleading, get advice early and tidy it before you are ordered to re-draft.
Jake McKinley notes that this article is written for the purpose of providing generalised information and not to provide specialised legal advice. If you require qualified legal advice on anything mentioned in this article, our experienced team of solicitors at Jake McKinley are here to help. Please get in touch with us on 02 9232 8033 today to make an enquiry.
