Background
This representative proceeding concerns strip searches conducted by New South Wales Police at music festivals between 2016 and 2022. The lead plaintiff, Raya Meredith, was strip searched at Splendour in the Grass 2018. Her claim, including damages, was determined in Meredith v State of New South Wales (No 5) [2025] NSWSC 1133; an appeal from aspects of that decision remains reserved.
The parties had agreed to progress the next stage through sample claims by other group members who attended the same festival. Five sample claimants alleged intentional torts including battery, assault and false imprisonment. The State’s responses asserted lawful justification for the searches under the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), relying on matters such as drug-dog indications, festival drug-use information, and claimant-specific observations. Meredith sought to strike out those parts of the responses as an abuse of process.
The Court’s Holding
Cavanagh J dismissed the motion. Although the responses were not pleadings within the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, the Court had inherent and statutory power to strike them out if they constituted an abuse of process. That power, however, is exceptional and requires the plaintiff to show that the proposed defence is so untenable that it cannot succeed.
The principal judgment had made findings about lawful justification in assessing damages after the State admitted liability to the lead plaintiff. It did not determine that no combination of factors, supported by evidence from the relevant officers, could justify a strip search of any other group member. The State’s proposed case was at least arguable because it concerned different individual circumstances and proposed officer evidence. Striking it out would improperly prevent the State from advancing a substantive defence to numerous remaining claims.
Key Takeaways
- Findings made when assessing a lead plaintiff’s damages do not necessarily preclude a defendant from contesting liability in later sample group-member claims.
- Abuse-of-process strike-out relief is a last resort and requires a clearly untenable claim or defence.
- The State remains bound by the answered common questions, but its responses did not seek to contradict them.
Why It Matters
The ruling preserves the State’s ability to test lawful justification on evidence specific to individual strip searches, despite adverse findings in the lead plaintiff’s damages case. It also underscores that representative proceedings may require further common-question or case-management steps to resolve recurring issues efficiently.