SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Coco v Ord Minnett Ltd [2012] QSC 324 |
PARTIES: | SALVATORE COCO (applicant/defendant) v ORD MINNETT LIMITED ACN 002 733 048 (respondent/plaintiff) |
FILE NO/S: | BS4530/11 |
DIVISION: | Trial |
PROCEEDING: | Application |
DELIVERED ON: | 26 October 2012 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 10 October 2012 |
JUDGE: | Jackson J |
ORDER: | DIRECT THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REASONS ON OR BEFORE 15 NOVEMBER 2012 |
CATCHWORDS: | PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES AND PREDECESSORS – PLEADING – STATEMENT OF CLAIM – where the applicant applies to strike out the fourth amended statement of claim pursuant to UCPR 171 – where the claim is for damages and statutory interest or the taking of accounts – where the causes of action pleaded by the statement of claim include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary obligation, negligent misrepresentation and misleading or deceptive conduct – where the pleading of misleading or deceptive conduct is incomplete – where the pleading does not identify the relevant statutory provision as required by UCPR 149(1)(e) – where the applicant conceded that the pleading required deletion of allegations of fraudulent conduct that the applicant no longer wished to pursue – where the pleading would be amended substantially as a consequence – where confusing language and other obvious errors in cross referencing would require amendment of the pleading – whether the defects are sufficient to warrant an order in the exercise of discretion that the whole pleading be struck out Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 5, 149(1)(e), 150(2), 154, 171 Ali v Hartley Poynton Limited (2002) Aust Torts Rep 81-665, cited Banque Commerciale SA in liquidation v Akhil Holdings Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279, referred Berndale Securities Limited v How Trading Pty Ltd [2010] VSC 216, cited Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697, referred Davy v Garrett (1878) 7 Ch D 473; Turner v Bulletin Newspaper Co Pty Ltd (1974) 131 CLR, cited Daly v Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd (1985-1986) 160 CLR 371, cited Forrest v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2012] HCA 39, cited Fortescue Metals Group Ltd v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2012] HCA 39, referred General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125, referred Giann and Giann Pty Ltd; ex parte ASIC [2005] FCA 81, cited Hanly v Securities and Exchange Commission 415F 2d 589, cited Madden v Kirkegard Ellwood & Partners [1975] Qd R 363, referred Magill v Magill (2006) 81 ALJR 254, cited Re Campbell and Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2001) 37 ACSR 238, cited Rogers v Whittaker (1992) 175 CLR 479, cited Seymour v Ockwell [2005] EWHC 1137, cited |
Continue reading Coco v Ord Minnett Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Coco v Ord Minnett Ltd [2012] QSC 324
- Case
- [2012] QSC 324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the defects in the pleading were sufficient to warrant the exercise of discretion to strike out the whole pleading. The court noted that the pleading would need to be amended substantially, not only to remove the allegations of fraudulent conduct but also to correct confusing language and other errors in cross-referencing. The court held that the defects were not so severe as to warrant striking out the whole pleading but required the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim in accordance with the reasons provided. The plaintiff was directed to amend the statement of claim on or before 15 November 2012.
In summary, the court found that while the pleading contained significant defects, these were not so severe as to justify striking out the whole pleading. Instead, the court required the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to address the identified deficiencies and to ensure that it complied with the relevant procedural rules. The court's decision provided clear directions for the plaintiff to rectify the issues and proceed with the litigation in a manner that met the necessary legal standards.
Orders
Orders of the court
DIRECT THE PLAINTIFF TO AMEND THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE REASONS ON OR BEFORE 15 NOVEMBER 2012
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.