Legal Research
Cases
Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd

Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 16 March 2010 81 min read

Contents

On this page

CANBERRA DATA CENTRES PTY LTD v VIBE CONSTRUCTIONS (ACT) PTY LTD
[2010] ACTSC 20 (16 March 2010)

PLEADINGS – Importance of pleadings – Ensure a cause of action is adequately pleaded

PLEADINGS – Part 2.3 Court Procedure Rules 2006 – Intelligibility of pleadings – Ambiguous pleadings – use of and/or in pleadings

PLEADINGS – Intelligibility of pleadings – Inadequate pleadings – Improper pleadings – Irrelevant pleadings – Dismiss application to file pleadings

SECURITY FOR COSTS – “Credible testimony”

COSTS – Substantial elements of ‘hopeless cases principle’ and ‘abuse of process’

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 42
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss 52, 79, 82, 75B
Criminal Code 2005 (Cth) s134.2
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT)
Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 (UK)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 15.9
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335(1)

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 50(2), 505(1)(a), 483(1), 21, 405, 406, 512, 200, 407(1)(d), 417(1)(a), 1900

O 20 r 7 of the pre-1964 English Rules of the Supreme Court 1883

Sir Jacob, Jack ‘The Present Importance of Pleadings’ (1960) Current Legal Problems 171
Sir Jacob, Jack, and Goldrein, Iain S, Pleadings: Principles and Practice (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1990)
Truss L, Eats Shoots and Leaves (Profile Books: London, 2003)
Bullens and Leake and Jacobs’ Precedents of Pleadings (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1975), 12th edition
Court Forms, Precedents and Pleadings New South Wales (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2003) volume 2
Robinson S, Drafting (Sydney: Butterworths, 1973)
Doonan E, Drafting (London: Cavendish Publishing, 1995)
Aitken JK and Butt P, Piesse’s Elements of Drafting (Sydney: Thomson Lawbook Co; 2004)
Butt P and Castle R, Modern Legal Drafting (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Summers RS, “Good Faith in General Contract Law and the Sales Provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code” (1968) 54 Virginia Law Review 195
Bullen, Leake & Jacobs Precedents of Pleadings (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1990) 13^th edition
Britts, MMG Pleadings Precedents (Sydney: Law Book Co, 1994) 4^th edition
Graham T, Victorian Pleading Precedents (Sydney: Law Book Company, 1982)
Balkin RP and Davis JLR Law of Torts (Sydney: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2004) 3^rd edition
Colbran SE, Security for Costs (Melbourne: Longman Professional, 1993)
Heydon JD, Cross on Evidence (Sydney: Butterworths, 1996)

Weinberg J, ‘The Australian Justice System – What is right and what is wrong with it?’, National Judicial College of Australia on 25 October 2008

Inglis v Moore (1981) 51 FLR 293
Mckellar & Anor v Container Terminal Management Services Ltd & Ors (1999) 165 ALR 409
Ting v Blanche (1993) 118 ALR 543
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 258 ALR 14
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936]1 KB 697
Banque Commerciale SA En Liquidation v Akhil Holdings Pty Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279
Multigroup Distribution Services Pty Limited v TNT Australia Pty Limited [1996] ATPR ¶ 41-522.
Chapman v Lumunis (1998) 86 FCR 513
Davey v Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473
The WA Teachers’ Financial Society Ltd v Gorey, Middleton & Forbes

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd v Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty... 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] ACTSC 20
Decision Date: 16 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Canberra Data Centres Pty Ltd brought proceedings against Vibe Constructions (ACT) Pty Ltd, alleging breaches of contract and seeking damages. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the validity of the proceedings, focusing on the pleadings and the application for security for costs. The key legal issues were whether the plaintiff's amended pleadings were sufficiently intelligible and whether the proceedings were credible enough to warrant an order for security for costs. The court held that the plaintiff's amended statement of claim was ambiguous, particularly in the use of "and/or," rendering it unintelligible and inadequate. Furthermore, the plaintiff's case was deemed not credible, leading to the dismissal of both the application to file amended pleadings and the application for security for costs. The court emphasised the importance of clear and precise pleadings and the substantial elements required to establish credibility in legal proceedings.

The Federal Court underscored the necessity of intelligible pleadings as per Part 2.3 of the Court Procedure Rules 2006. The court found the plaintiff's use of "and/or" to be ambiguous and thus inadequate for the purposes of the litigation. This ambiguity rendered the pleadings unintelligible, failing to adequately state a cause of action. Additionally, the court considered the credibility of the plaintiff's case, finding it insufficiently credible to warrant an order for security for costs. The court reasoned that the plaintiff had not met the threshold of presenting a credible case, thereby dismissing the application for security for costs. The court also highlighted the substantial elements required to establish a credible case, which the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the application made by Application in Proceedings for leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 September 2009 be dismissed.

2. That the application made by Application in Proceedings dated 1 June 2009 for an order that the plaintiff give security for costs be dismissed.

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.