Andy Haridemos and Maria Haridemos v Insurance Australia Limited (Trading as NRMA Insurance)

The plaintiffs, Andy Haridemos and Maria Haridemos, brought an action against Insurance Australia Limited (trading as NRMA Insurance) concerning an insurance claim. The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract and negligence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The plaintiffs applied for further and better particulars of the defendant’s defence and for an order striking out a paragraph of the defence as embarrassing. The key issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs could obtain an order compelling the defendant to provide particulars of the alleged breaches of the insurance policy terms and whether the court could exercise its discretion under the Markus principles to strike out the paragraph in the defence that asserted the plaintiffs would be able to prove their case.

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to particulars from the defendant of the alleged breaches of the insurance policy terms. The court found that the defendant’s defence did not sufficiently identify the breaches of the policy terms on which the defence was based. The court also found that the Markus discretion did not extend to relieving the defendant from the requirement to plead and give particulars of the asserted breaches. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to further and better particulars of the defendant’s defence, and the plaintiffs were granted an order for those particulars. The court did not find it necessary to strike out the paragraph in the defence as embarrassing, as the plaintiffs were able to obtain the particulars they sought.

The court made an order for the defendant to provide further and better particulars of the defence within 28 days from the date of the judgment. The court did not make any order striking out the paragraph in the defence as embarrassing.