DOW CORNING AUSTRALIA PTY LTD -v- GIRYS [2001] WASCA 361
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 361 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:150/1999 | 19 MAY 2000 | |
| Coram: | KENNEDY J WALLWORK J WHEELER J | 14/11/01 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd v Girys 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2001] WASCA 361
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd versus Girys involved a dispute concerning a request for further and better particulars of a claim. The matter was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd, sought further and better particulars of the claim from the defendant, Girys, under section 25 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. Girys resisted the request, leading to a refusal by the Commissioner of the Court to order the plaintiff to provide the particulars. The plaintiff subsequently applied for leave to appeal against this refusal, which was also denied. Dissatisfied, Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd appealed to the Full Court.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the request for further and better particulars by the plaintiff amounted to a request for evidence by which the material facts were to be proved. According to the court, the function of particulars is to clearly define the case to be met by the defendant. The court held that if the request for particulars goes beyond this function and instead seeks the evidence upon which the claim is founded, then it is not appropriate for the court to grant such a request. This delineation was critical in determining whether the plaintiff's request was valid and whether the Commissioner's refusal to order the particulars was correct.
In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's request for particulars exceeded the scope of what was permissible under the Act. The court emphasised that the function of particulars is to ensure clarity in the pleadings, not to act as a discovery tool for the plaintiff. The request was seen as seeking evidence rather than clarification of the allegations. Therefore, the Commissioner's refusal to order the particulars was upheld, and the application for leave to appeal against this decision was dismissed. The Full Court followed this reasoning and dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd against the refusal of the Commissioner to order further and better particulars of the claim was dismissed. No further orders were made as the appeal was not successful.
The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the request for further and better particulars by the plaintiff amounted to a request for evidence by which the material facts were to be proved. According to the court, the function of particulars is to clearly define the case to be met by the defendant. The court held that if the request for particulars goes beyond this function and instead seeks the evidence upon which the claim is founded, then it is not appropriate for the court to grant such a request. This delineation was critical in determining whether the plaintiff's request was valid and whether the Commissioner's refusal to order the particulars was correct.
In its reasoning, the court found that the plaintiff's request for particulars exceeded the scope of what was permissible under the Act. The court emphasised that the function of particulars is to ensure clarity in the pleadings, not to act as a discovery tool for the plaintiff. The request was seen as seeking evidence rather than clarification of the allegations. Therefore, the Commissioner's refusal to order the particulars was upheld, and the application for leave to appeal against this decision was dismissed. The Full Court followed this reasoning and dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower court's decision.
The final orders of the court were that the appeal brought by Dow Corning Australia Pty Ltd against the refusal of the Commissioner to order further and better particulars of the claim was dismissed. No further orders were made as the appeal was not successful.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.