Carrigan v Hill

The matter of Carrigan v Hill was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants, and the defendants sought to have certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim struck out on the basis that they did not comply with the rules of pleading. Specifically, the defendants argued that the relevant paragraphs were overly lengthy and included unnecessary details that did not contribute to identifying the issues, disclosing an arguable claim or defence, or informing the parties of the case that had to be met.

The court was required to decide whether the relevant paragraphs met the requirements of the rules of pleading and whether they should be struck out. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Rules 1971 (WA) and the authorities on pleading and case management. The court found that the relevant paragraphs did not comply with the rules of pleading as they included unnecessary particulars and evidence, which obscured the identification of the true issues in contention and impacted on the proper and efficient preparation of a case and its presentation at trial.

The court held that the relevant paragraphs should be struck out as they did not state with sufficient clarity the case that must be met and did not comply with the rules of pleading. The court granted leave to the plaintiffs to replead the relevant paragraphs and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendants' costs of the application.

This decision highlights the importance of adhering to the rules of pleading and the need to avoid unnecessary particulars and evidence in pleadings. It also emphasises the role of case management in achieving the goals of the rules and the need to avoid prolixity in pleadings.