FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Altrad Australia Pty Ltd v Dropulich [2025] FCA 342
File number: WAD 363 of 2024 Judgment of: FEUTRILL J Date of judgment: 10 April 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike-out paragraphs of statement of claim – evasive or ambiguous pleading – pleading likely to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay in the proceeding – failure to disclose any reasonable cause of action – failure to plead material facts – adequacy of particulars – fair notice of the case to be met – restatement of relevant principles Legislation: Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth) s 12BB, 12DA, 12GF
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 286, 297, 344(1), 411, 1041H, 1041I, 1317H
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 21, 37M
Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 16.02, 16.21, 16.41-16.45
Cases cited: Austin Engineering Ltd v Podulova (No 3) [2024] FCA 1001
Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; 33 WAR 82
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; 148 CLR 658
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 36 Date of hearing: 2 April 2025 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr SK Dharmananda SC with Ms Collins Solicitor for the Applicants: Squire Patton Boggs (AU) Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr TJ Langdon Solicitor for the First Respondent: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers Counsel for the Second Respondent: Mr T Porter Solicitor for the Second Respondent: Wotton Kearney Counsel for the Third Respondent: Mr K de Kerloy SC Solicitor for the Third Respondent: K&L Gates ORDERS
WAD 363 of 2024 BETWEEN: ALTRAD AUSTRALIA PTY LTD ACN 652 016 807
First Applicant
ALTRAD INVESTMENT AUTHORITY SAS (A FOREIGN COMPANY INCORPORATED IN FRANCE)
Second Applicant
VALMEC PTY LTD ACN 003 607 074
Third Applicant
AND: STEVEN DROPULICH
First Respondent
STEPHEN ZURHAAR
Second Respondent
HARVEER SINGH
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
FEUTRILL J
DATE OF ORDER:
10 APRIL 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Identification of issues, pleadings and strike-out
1.The Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) not apply and only the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) apply to the proceeding.
2.The originating application filed 5 December 2024 stand as the originating process in the proceeding.
3.The identification of the issues in this proceeding be on pleadings.
4.The minute of proposed further amended statement of claim filed 26 March 2025 stand as the statement of claim in the proceeding and, otherwise, the interlocutory application for leave to further amend the statement of claim filed 26 March 2025 be dismissed with no order as to costs.
5.The minutes of proposed orders filed by the first and third respondent on 14 March 2025 be treated as applications to strike-out the statement of claim referred to in paragraph 4 of these orders under…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Altrad Australia Pty Ltd v Dropulich and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 342
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation and application of relevant Federal Court Rules, particularly those related to the striking out of pleadings. The court was required to determine whether the statement of claim complied with the requirements for adequate particulars and whether the pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action. The court also had to consider the principles of fair notice and the overall adequacy of the pleadings in light of the potential prejudice to the respondents.
The court dismissed the respondents’ applications to strike out the statement of claim. It found that the applicants had adequately pleaded their case, and the claim was not evasive, ambiguous, or likely to cause undue prejudice, embarrassment, or delay. The court further held that the applicants had provided sufficient particulars to give fair notice of the case to be met and had disclosed a reasonable cause of action. Consequently, the court ordered that the proposed further amended statement of claim would stand as the statement of claim in the proceeding. The court also directed the parties to adhere to specific timelines for filing statements of claim, defences, expert briefs, and other procedural steps. These orders aimed to ensure a structured progression of the case towards a trial.
Orders
Orders of the court
Identification of issues, pleadings and strike-out
1. The Federal Court (Corporations) Rules 2000 (Cth) not apply and only the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) apply to the proceeding.
2. The originating application filed 5 December 2024 stand as the originating process in the proceeding.
3. The identification of the issues in this proceeding be on pleadings.
4. The minute of proposed further amended statement of claim filed 26 March 2025 stand as the statement of claim in the proceeding and, otherwise, the interlocutory application for leave to further amend the statement of claim filed 26 March 2025 be dismissed with no order as to costs.
5. The minutes of proposed orders filed by the first and third respondent on 14 March 2025 be treated as applications to strike-out the statement of claim referred to in paragraph 4 of these orders under r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules.
6. The applications referred to in paragraph 5 of these orders be dismissed.
7. The first and third respondents pay the applicants’ costs of the applications referred to in paragraph 5 of these orders and costs of the case management hearing on 2 April 2025 to be taxed if not agreed.
8. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 17 April 2025 the applicants file and serve their statement of claim in the form of the minute of proposed further amended statement of claim filed on 26 March 2025.
9. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 8 May 2025 the respondents file and serve their defences.
10. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 22 May 2025 the applicants file and serve any replies to the defences.
Discovery
11. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 19 June 2025 the parties give standard discovery.
12. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 24 April 2025:
(a) the parties file an agreed protocol for the exchange and discovery of electronic documents and any discovery plan; or failing agreement,
(b) the applicants file the protocol and any discovery plan to which they are prepared to agree and the respondents, each or together, file a protocol and discovery plan to which they are prepared to agree marked up to identify the differences between the applicants’ proposal and the respondents’ proposal(s); and
(c) each party file and serve a short written outline of submissions (limited to three pages) in support of that party's proposal and opposition to the other party’s proposal.
Expert evidence
13. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 19 June 2025 the applicants file and serve a draft expert brief for each person the applicants intend calling to give expert evidence at the trial on particular issues.
14. The applicants’ draft expert brief is to include the following:
(a) a list of the assumptions that each witness is to be instructed to make in the preparation of the expert evidence;
(b) a list of the documents or other material each witness will be requested to consider in the preparation of the expert evidence; and
(c) a list of the questions upon which each witness will be requested to opine in the expert evidence.
15. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 10 July 2025 each respondent file and serve a draft expert brief for each person that respondent intends calling to give expert evidence at the trial on particular issues.
16. Any respondent draft expert brief filed and served in accordance with paragraph 15 of these orders must include the information referred to in paragraph 14 and, if and to the extent that it is different from a draft expert brief of the applicants, mark-up the part(s) where the respondent expert brief differs from that of the applicants’ draft brief.
Interlocutory disputes
17. Except in cases of urgency or with leave of the Court, paragraphs 18 to 21 of these orders are to apply to any interlocutory process filed in the proceedings and, in particular, a party is not to file any interlocutory process unless that party has first complied with paragraph 18 of these orders.
18. If any interlocutory dispute arises between any of the parties, their respective legal representatives are to confer in-person (or by telephone or video-link) and attempt to resolve the dispute within three business days of the dispute arising.
19. If the dispute has not been resolved after the parties’ legal representatives have conferred in an attempt to resolve it, the party seeking the interlocutory order may then file an interlocutory process.
20. The party seeking the interlocutory order must file and serve with the interlocutory process:
(a) a short note (no more than 2 pages) stating:
(i) that parties have conferred in accordance with paragraph 18 of these orders;
(ii) the matters the subject of the interlocutory process that are agreed or that are not in issue or dispute between the parties; and
(iii) the matters the subject of the interlocutory process that remain in issue or are in dispute between the parties,
and
(b) a short outline of submissions (no more than 5 pages) in support of the application.
21. If the party seeking the interlocutory order has complied with paragraphs 18 and 20 of these orders, the party opposing the interlocutory order is to file and serve a short outline of submissions (no more than 5 pages) in opposition to the application.
Non-compliance with case management orders
22. In the event of default by any party for five business days in complying with a case management order for the taking of any interlocutory step, the solicitor for the party in default is to submit to the solicitor for each other party a proposed revised timetable for the interlocutory steps outstanding. (If a party in default has previously defaulted, the period of five business days is reduced to two business days.)
23. Upon receipt of the revised timetable, the solicitor for each party is, as soon as reasonably practicable, to inform that solicitor’s client:
(a) of the existing timetable;
(b) of the fact of the default; and
(c) the proposed revised timetable,
and obtain the client's instructions as to whether the client consents to the proposed revised timetable.
24. Upon receipt of the client's instructions, the solicitor for each party is, as soon as reasonably practicable, to inform the solicitors for the party in default of those instructions.
25. If all parties consent to the proposed revised timetable, the party in default is to file a minute of consent orders with the Court and, pending the Court making the orders by consent, the interlocutory steps are to proceed in accordance with the agreed revised timetable.
26. If not all parties consent to the proposed revised timetable, the solicitor for the party in default is, as soon as reasonably practicable, to request the matter be relisted for a case management hearing so that appropriate orders may then be made.
General
27. By 4.30pm (AWST) on 17 April 2025 the parties give notice to the Court of their unavailable dates for a trial of up to 10 days for February, March, April, May and June 2026.
28. The parties have liberty to apply on 48 hours’ written notice to re-list the case management hearing for such further or other directions or orders as may be requested.
29. The case management hearing be re-listed at 9.15am (AWST) on 23 July 2025.
30. No later than 4.30pm (AWST) on 18 July 2025 the parties file and serve an agreed or competing minute(s) of proposed orders for the remaining interlocutory steps in the proceeding together with a document indicating the number of lay and expert witnesses each party intends calling to give evidence at the trial.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.