Craig v Silverbrook - [2016] NSWSC 530

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Craig v Silverbrook [2016] NSWSC 530
Hearing dates: 14 April 2016
Date of orders: 28 April 2016
Decision date: 28 April 2016
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Slattery J
Decision:
Pleading struck out as against the 12th, 17th, 19th, 21st, 22nd, 27th and 28th defendants, with costs.

Catchwords: PROCEDURE – application to strike out Statement of Claim as against 12th to 24th, 27th and 28th defendants – application by plaintiffs to amend Statement of Claim - leave granted for proceedings to be discontinued as against defendants in liquidation, namely 13th to 16th, 18th, 20th, 23rd and 24th defendants – whether Statement of Claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or constitutes an abuse of process - whether leave to re-plead should be given.
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, s 98
Equity Act 1880, ss 70, 71, 73 and 77
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 14.28(1)(a) and (c)
Cases Cited: Cabassi v Vila (1940) 64 CLR 130
Coshott Co v Kam Tou Mak [1998] FCA 147
Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 612; [2002] NSWCA 78
Loretta Kistmah Craig & Ors v Kia Silverbrook & Ors [2013] NSWSC 1687
Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: First Plaintiff: Loretta Kistmah Craig
Second Plaintiff: Vincent Desmond Craig
Third Plaintiff: D & L Craig & Associates Pty Ltd [ACN 003 583 319]
Fourth Plaintiff: DLC Properties Pty Limited [ACN 071 433 675]
Fifth Plaintiff: DLCF Pty Limited [ACN 123 783 246]
Twelfth Defendant: Memjet Technology Limited [Company Number 335478]
Thirteenth Defendant: Delo Finance Limited [Company Number 351329] (in liq)
Fourteenth Defendant: Sodep Limited [Company Number 322834] (In liq)
Fifteenth Defendant: Hanric Limited [Company Number 313806] (In liq)
Sixteenth Defendant: Corrizen Limited [Company Number 370817] (In liq)
Seventeenth Defendant: Vandini Limited [Company Number 365376]
Eighteenth Defendant: Monaxis Limited [Company Number 370300] (In liq)
Nineteenth Defendant: Kamath Limited [Company Number 380291]
Twentieth Defendant: Verifor Limited [Company Number 313914] (In liq)
Twenty-First Defendant: Levon Limited [Company Number 322965]
Twenty-Second Defendant: Milron Limited [Company Number 322721]
Twenty-Third Defendant: Elberino Limited [Company Number 419951] (In liq)
Twenty-Fourth Defendant: Hedblom Limited [Company Number 420022]
Twenty-Seventh Defendant: Memjet Holdings Limited [Republic of Ireland Company Number 515252]
Twenty-Eighth Defendant: Memjet North Pty Limited [ACN 158 185 883]
Representation:
Counsel:

Plaintiff: J. Curtin
12th – 24th, 27th and 28th Defendants: R. C. A. Higgins

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: Self-represented
12th – 24th, 27th and 28th Defendants: Andrew Salgo, Baker & MacKenzie

File Number(s): 2016/62045
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The 12th to 24th, 27th and 28th defendants (“the Global defendants”) in these proceedings apply to strike out as against them the plaintiff’s Statement of Claim filed on 26 February 2016. They apply under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (“UCPR”), r 14.28(1)(a) and (c) by Motion filed on 30 March 2016. They contend that the Statement of Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against them and constitutes an abuse of process. The Global defendants further…

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.

Continue reading Craig v Silverbrook

Details

AGLC: Craig v Silverbrook [2016] NSWSC 530
Case: [2016] NSWSC 530
Decision Date: 28 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Craig v Silverbrook involved multiple defendants, with Craig, the plaintiff, bringing claims against a series of defendants in relation to financial transactions. The dispute centred on the validity of the claims against certain defendants and the procedural steps taken in the case. The court before which the case was heard was the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action against the defendants and if the proceeding constituted an abuse of process. Further, the court had to consider whether leave should be granted to the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim and to discontinue proceedings against specific defendants who were in liquidation. The court's role was to determine if the plaintiff's claims against the remaining defendants were justiciable and whether the plaintiff should be permitted to re-plead to address the deficiencies identified.

In examining these issues, the court considered the content of the Statement of Claim and whether it provided sufficient grounds to support the claims against the defendants. The court acknowledged the plaintiff's right to amend pleadings to cure any defects, subject to the principles of justice and fairness. The court also took into account the defendants' status, particularly those in liquidation, and the procedural fairness in managing the claims against them. Ultimately, the court found that the Statement of Claim did not sufficiently disclose a reasonable cause of action against some defendants, but granted leave to amend and discontinue proceedings against those in liquidation, allowing the plaintiff to re-plead to address the issues identified.

In light of the above, the court ordered that the proceedings be discontinued as against the defendants in liquidation and granted leave for the plaintiff to amend the Statement of Claim. This decision allowed the plaintiff to re-plead and potentially proceed against the remaining defendants, ensuring that the case moved forward in a manner that adhered to the principles of procedural fairness and justice.

Orders