Charbel Hanna v 311 Hume Highway

[2012] NSWSC 81

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Charbel Hanna v 311 Hume Highway [2012] NSWSC 81

Hearing dates:

15 February 2012

Decision date:

15 February 2012

Jurisdiction:

Equity Division - Commercial List

Before:

Einstein J

Decision:

1. I direct that the defendant be excused from complying with the timetabling of these proceedings until determination of this Notice of Motion.

2. I direct that the plaintiff write a letter to the defendant and further particularise the pleadings in paragraph 20C and 20D by Friday 17 February 2012.

3. I direct that the defendant file and serve a defence by Friday 24 February 2012.

4. I direct that the plaintiff pay $40,000 as security for costs and I will deliver my reasons on Thursday 16 February 2012.

5. I direct that the defendant pay the costs of this Notice of Motion.

Catchwords:

PLEADINGS - Strike out application - Request for further and better particulars
SECURITY FOR COSTS - Claim that plaintiff not suing for own benefit, but for the benefit of some other person

Category:

Procedural and other rulings

Parties:

Charbel Hanna (Plaintiff)
311 Hume Highway Liverpool Fund Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Citadel Financial Corporation Pty Ltd (Second Defendant)

Representation:

Mr C R C Newlinds SC, Ms L R Sanderson (Plaintiff)
Mr G Laughton SC, Mr D Accoto (First and Second Defendants)
Birch Partners (Plaintiff)
Placanica Lawyers (First and Second Defendants)

File Number(s):

290502 of 2011

Ex Tempore Judgment

1. There is before the Court a notice of motion filed on 17 January 2012 under cover of which the defendants seek a number of orders. The first of those orders is that the defendants be excused from complying with timetabling orders made in these proceedings until the determination of the notice of motion. The second deals with the application for the plaintiff to post security for costs in such sum as the Court may award. The third seeks to have certain parts of the plaintiff's pleadings struck out. Costs are also sought.

1. The central arguments have been twofold. The first has been the defendant's contention that a number of particulars are required before the defendant will be in a position to properly understand the case which the defendants are meeting. In that regard the Court has determined that only from the claimed particulars is the plaintiff to deal with the complaints at 20C and 20D. That matter is to be treated with before the end of this week. The other matters pressed in relation to the defendant's contentions are not of sufficient substance to bear any requirement for further and better particulars.

1. There is also the question of, to what extent, if at all, should the Court in the circumstances order security for costs. In my view the appropriate order in that regard is to require the plaintiff to pay as security for costs $40,000.

1. The reasons for ordering security of costs are reserved.

1. Additionally, the Court orders that the defendants pay the costs of the motion.

Decision last updated: 17 February 2012