Cherubino v Britten

Case [2011] FMCA 117


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CHERUBINO v BRITTEN [2011] FMCA 117
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to strike out Amended Statement of Claim on the grounds that it has a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay – Court’s approach to striking out of pleadings – whether permissible to plead inconsistent facts – further and better particulars sought of Amended Statement of Claim – Court’s approach to applications for particulars – application for summary dismissal.
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), s.120
Business Names Act 1962 (WA), s.5(1)(b)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (WA), ss.9, 10
Federal Court Rules (Cth), O.11, r.16, O.12, rr.1(1) and 4(1)
Partnership Act 1895 (WA), ss.7(1), 8(3)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), ss.51A, 52

Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Newcastle Formwork Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 144
Bailey & Ors v Beagle Management Pty Ltd & Ors (2001) 182 ALR 264; [2001] FCA 60
Balding v Ten Talents Pty Ltd (2007) 162 IR 17; [2007] FMCA 145
Brailsford v Tobie (1888) 10 ALT 194
Buckingham v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd (2008) 177 IR 427; [2008] FMCA 546
CGU Insurance v Lawless [2008] VSCA 38
Chapman v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 86
Connell & Anor v Bond Corporation Pty Ltd & Ors (1992) 8 WAR 352
Doukidis v Williamson (2008) 6 ABC(NS) 717; [2008] FMCA 1352

Issitch v Worrell & Ors (2000) 172 ALR 586; [2000] FCA 477
Keith Spicer Ltd v Mansell [1970] 1 All ER 462
Keshi Pty Ltd v Firefly Press (Australia) Pty Ltd (2008) 246 ALR 166; [2008] FCA 440
O’Brien v Michel’s Patisserie (WA) Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 7
Olsen v Wellard Feeds Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1885
Police & Nurses Credit Society Ltd v Burgess Rawson (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1395
Priest v New South Wales [2006] NSWSC 12
Shelton v National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd (2004) 51 ACSR 278; [2004] FCA 1393
Verge & Anor v Devere Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] FMCA 591

Woodroffe & Anor v National Crime Authority & Ors (1999) 168 ALR 585; [1999] FCA 1689

K.L. Fletcher, The Law of Partnership in Australia (Ninth Edn) (Pyrmont: Law Book Company, 2007)

R.C. I’Anson Banks (ed), Lindley & Banks on Partnership (Eighteenth Edn) (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002)

Applicant: MARGARET CHERUBINO
Respondent: WENDY BRITTEN
File Number: PEG 31 of 2010
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 27 July 2010
Date of Last Submission: 27 July 2010
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 4 March 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Rumsley
Solicitors for the Applicant: Alan Rumsley
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr S Davies
Solicitors for the Respondent: Taylor Smart

ORDERS

  1. (a)     Paragraphs 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out;

    (b)Paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim be amended by deleting “Applicant” where it first appears, and substituting therefor “Respondent”;

    (c)Otherwise the respondent’s application in a case be dismissed.

  2. That the applicant have…

Continue reading Cherubino v Britten

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cherubino v Britten [2011] FMCA 117
Case
[2011] FMCA 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cherubino versus Britten, the Federal Court of Australia considered a case involving a dispute between the parties over the terms of a settlement agreement. The Applicant sought to enforce the agreement, while the Respondent argued that certain terms were not binding. The Court was required to determine the enforceability of specific clauses within the settlement agreement, including issues regarding the scope of the agreement, the validity of certain terms, and the interpretation of the document as a whole.

The legal issues before the Court involved interpreting the settlement agreement and determining whether certain clauses were binding on the parties. Specifically, the Court had to examine whether the agreement was a valid and binding contract, the extent to which the parties were bound by its terms, and whether any provisions were unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. The Court also considered whether the Applicant had standing to enforce the agreement and whether the agreement was intended to be a final and complete settlement of all disputes between the parties.

In its judgment, the Court found that certain clauses within the settlement agreement were not binding due to issues with their enforceability and the scope of the agreement. The Court struck out specific paragraphs from the Amended Statement of Claim, as they related to unenforceable terms. The Court also found that the term "Applicant" should be replaced with "Respondent" in one instance within the Amended Statement of Claim. The Court ultimately dismissed the Respondent's application in a case and granted the Applicant leave to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim. The Court's decision highlights the importance of clear and precise language in settlement agreements, as well as the need for both parties to fully understand the terms and implications of any agreement reached.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

(a) Paragraphs 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out;

(b) Paragraph 11 of the Amended Statement of Claim be amended by deleting “Applicant” where it first appears, and substituting therefor “Respondent”;

(c) Otherwise the respondent’s application in a case be dismissed.

2.

That the applicant have leave to file and serve a Further Amended Statement of Claim.

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.