Fairworld Holdings Pty Ltd v Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [No 3]

Fairworld Holdings Pty Ltd brought an action against Burrup Fertilisers Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed), seeking relief in relation to certain transactions. The dispute was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The central issue before the court was the validity of certain paragraphs in the plaintiff's statement of claim and whether they should be struck out as irrelevant or embarrassing. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the allegations regarding express actual authority were relevant and necessary to the plaintiff's case, and whether the pleadings should be amended or dismissed based on the current form.

The court examined the pleadings and found that paragraph 27, which was argued to be based on section 129, was not strictly aligned with the statutory requirements. Section 129 does not pertain to a representation of authority made to a third party, but rather focuses on the type of company, the nature of the office or agency, and the customary powers exercised by such officers or agents. The court also noted that paragraph 27 did not accurately reflect the factual issues that would need to be determined, and thus was not a strict plea of apparent authority. Additionally, the court decided that it was not necessary to address the defendant's argument regarding the plaintiff's ability to re-plead, as the court would only allow a limited part of the application. The court found that the plaintiff should be permitted to remedy any defects in the statement of claim in the ordinary way, in line with Order 21.

The court concluded that paragraphs 25.5 and 26 should be struck out, as they were deemed irrelevant. However, the court did not find it necessary to preclude the plaintiff from remedying any defects in the statement of claim that may have been identified during the arguments. The court allowed the application to the limited extent of striking out the specified paragraphs but did not prevent the plaintiff from making amendments to the pleadings as per the usual procedures.