Aimtek Pty Ltd v Flightship Ground Effect Pte Ltd

Aimtek Pty Ltd sought interlocutory orders from the Supreme Court of Queensland to strike out certain paragraphs of Flightship Ground Effect Pte Ltd’s amended answer to its amended counterclaim. Aimtek contended that the six paragraphs in question failed to comply with rule 166 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld). Specifically, five paragraphs, which contained nonadmissions, did not explain why the respondent believed the allegations could not be admitted, and one paragraph, a denial, was allegedly defective for uncertainty. Aimtek appealed against the primary judge’s refusal to strike out these paragraphs.

The legal issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in refusing to strike out the six paragraphs of the amended answer. Aimtek argued that the nonadmissions did not provide any explanation for why the respondent could not admit the allegations, and therefore did not comply with rule 166. Additionally, Aimtek contended that the denial was uncertain because it did not specify which allegation was being denied. Flightship, on the other hand, argued that the primary judge had correctly determined that the paragraphs were sufficient to comply with the rules.

The court found that the primary judge did not err in refusing to strike out the six paragraphs. The court held that the nonadmissions were sufficient because they identified the specific allegations that were not being admitted, even if they did not explain why the allegations could not be admitted. Furthermore, the court found that the denial was not uncertain because it was clear which allegation was being denied. The court also held that the primary judge had not erred in finding that the paragraphs were sufficient to comply with rule 166.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.