Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd - [2010] FCA 1150

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1150

Citation: Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1150

Parties: NICK CHRISTOU v STANTONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 103 088 697, STANTONS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 109 717 071, KEITH GRAEME LINGARD and NEIL KEVIN JOYCE

File number: WAD 182 of 2010

Judge: MCKERRACHER J

Date of judgment: 22 October 2010

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out parts of the statement of claim – where vital links between alleged conduct and loss have not been made – where non-material facts have been pleaded

Legislation: Federal Court Rules O 11 r 16

Cases cited:
Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125
H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli (1979) 40 FLR 242
Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Limited (2010) 270 ALR 204
Sun Earth Homes Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 98 ALR 101
Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG [2008] ATPR 42-258

Date of hearing: 19 October 2010

Place: Perth

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 27

Counsel for the Applicant: PG Clifford

Solicitor for the Applicant: Alan Rumsley

Counsel for the Respondents: MA MacLennan

Solicitor for the Respondents: Lavan Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 182 of 2010

BETWEEN:
NICK CHRISTOU
Applicant

AND:
STANTONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 103 088 697
First Respondent

STANTONS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 109 717 071
Second Respondent

KEITH GRAEME LINGARD
Third Respondent

NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 OCTOBER 2010

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Footnotes 1-8, paragraphs 27-28, 41 and 51-54 of the statement of claim be struck out.
2.The applicant do have leave to re-plead the statement of claim. Any amended statement of claim be filed and served within 21 days.
3.The applicant do pay the respondents’ costs of the motion to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 182 of 2010

BETWEEN:
NICK CHRISTOU
Applicant

AND:
STANTONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 103 088 697
First Respondent

STANTONS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PTY LTD
ACN 109 717 071
Second Respondent

KEITH GRAEME LINGARD
Third Respondent

NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE:

22 OCTOBER 2010

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION

The respondents move to strike out parts of the statement of claim filed and served by the applicant (Mr Christou). The strike out motion is made pursuant to O 11 r 16 of the Federal Court Rules (FCR) which provides as follows:
16 Embarrassment etc
Where a pleading:
(a)discloses no reasonable cause…

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 Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd 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] FCA 1150
Decision Date: 22 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd involved the applicant, Christou, and the respondent, Stantons International Pty Ltd. The dispute centred around an application by Stantons International Pty Ltd to strike out certain parts of Christou’s statement of claim on the grounds that they did not establish vital links between the alleged conduct and the claimed loss, and contained non-material facts. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the parts of the statement of claim identified by Stantons International Pty Ltd should be struck out because they did not sufficiently connect the alleged conduct to the loss, and whether these sections contained non-material facts that were not relevant to the proceedings. The court had to balance the need for a clear and concise statement of claim against the principle that courts should not intervene lightly in a party's right to present their case.

The court found that the parts of the statement of claim identified for striking out indeed lacked the necessary links between the conduct and the loss, and contained extraneous details that did not contribute to the merits of the case. The court concluded that these sections were not material to the proceedings and should be removed to streamline the case and avoid unnecessary delay and cost. The court granted the application to strike out specific footnotes, paragraphs, and sections of the statement of claim. It also allowed the applicant leave to re-plead the statement of claim within a specified timeframe and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the motion if not agreed upon.

In summary, the court's decision involved striking out certain parts of the statement of claim, allowing the applicant to re-plead, and ordering costs to be paid to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Footnotes 1-8, paragraphs 27-28, 41 and 51-54 of the statement of claim be struck out.

2. The applicant do have leave to re-plead the statement of claim. Any amended statement of claim be filed and served within 21 days.

3. The applicant do pay the respondents’ costs of the motion to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

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

The respondents also initially raised but, correctly, abandoned (at this point) a limitation argument. CONCLUSION The orders will be:1.Footnotes 1-8, paragraphs 27-28, 41 and 51-54 of the statement of claim be struck out.2.The applicant do have leave to re-plead the statement of claim. Any amended statement of claim be filed and served within 21 days.3.The applicant do pay the respondents’ costs of the motion to be taxed if not agreed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Christou v Stantons International Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1150
Parties:	NICK CHRISTOU v STANTONS INTERNATIONAL PTY LTD ACN 103 088 697, STANTONS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES PTY LTD ACN 109 717 071, KEITH GRAEME LINGARD and NEIL KEVIN JOYCE
File number:	WAD 182 of 2010
Judge:	MCKERRACHER J
Date of judgment:	22 October 2010
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application to strike out parts of the statement of claim – where vital links between alleged conduct and loss have not been made – where non-material facts have been pleaded
Legislation:	Federal Court Rules O 11 r 16
Cases cited:	Demagogue Pty Ltd v Ramensky (1992) 39 FCR 31 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 H 1976 Nominees Pty Ltd v Galli (1979) 40 FLR 242 Miller & Associates Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v BMW Australia Finance Limited (2010) 270 ALR 204 Sun Earth Homes Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1990) 98 ALR 101 Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG [2008] ATPR 42-258
Date of hearing:	19 October 2010
Place:	Perth
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	27
Counsel for the Applicant:	PG Clifford
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Alan Rumsley
Counsel for the Respondents:	MA MacLennan
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Lavan Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	WAD 182 of 2010

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 OCTOBER 2010
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	MCKERRACHER J
DATE:	22 OCTOBER 2010
PLACE:	PERTH