Cohen v Amberley Corporation Australia Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that a deed of variation of trust, which removed them as beneficiaries, was beyond the power of the trustees and therefore invalid. The defendants denied the allegations and argued that the plaintiffs' claims were not properly pleaded. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court had to decide whether the plaintiffs' pleadings were sufficient to warrant an order for discovery of documents and whether the pleadings should be struck out.

The court considered whether the plaintiffs' allegations of lack of good faith, improper purpose, lack of impartiality, and failure to give proper effect to the terms and purpose of the trust were properly pleaded. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient detail in their pleadings to support the allegations, and that the pleadings did not meet the requirements set out in Karger v Paul and Mandie v Memart Nominees Pty Ltd. The court held that the plaintiffs' pleadings were insufficient and should be struck out, but granted the plaintiffs liberty to re-plead.

The court ordered that the plaintiffs' pleadings be struck out and that the plaintiffs be given an opportunity to re-plead. The court did not make any orders for discovery of documents, as the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient detail in their pleadings to warrant such an order. The court emphasised the importance of properly pleading claims in order to ensure that the parties are able to fully and fairly litigate the issues in the case.