Legal Research
Cases
Flecknoe v Pared Ltd

Flecknoe v Pared Ltd

Case [2025] NSWSC 775 22 July 2025

Appeal

Pleadings

Summary Judgment

Discovery & Disclosure

Issue Estoppel

Interlocutory Orders

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Flecknoe v Pared Ltd [2025] NSWSC 775
Hearing dates: 7 July 2025
Date of orders: 22 July 2025
Decision date: 22 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
The defendant shall bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting this judgement within 7 days of the date of delivery of this judgement which shall include:
(1) If there is joint acceptance of the preliminary view as to costs, the Short Minutes of Order should reflect the agreement of the parties.
(2) If there is a dispute as to costs, the defendants shall file and serve the order they propose as to costs accompanying the Short Minutes of Order together with short written submissions in support of the same, and the plaintiffs shall file and serve their reply submissions and the orders they propose within a further 7 days.
(3) Subject to the above, costs are reserved.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Application to strike out proceedings – Whether pleadings disclosed no reasonable cause of action – Whether pleadings embarrassing – Strike out motion dismissed
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Particulars – Alternative motion – Order sought for further particulars – Whether further particulars required – Where plaintiff conceded further particulars should be provided – Order for further particulars made

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2001 (NSW)
Felons (Civil Proceedings) Act 1981 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Bailey v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (1977) 136 CLR 214; [1977] HCA 11
Brimson v Rocla Concrete Pipes Ltd [1982] 2 NSWLR 937
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697
Charlie Carter Pty Limited v Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association (1987) 13 FCR 413
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Goldsmith v Sandilands and Others (2002) 190 ALR 370; [2002] HCA 31
Gunns Ltd v Marr [2005] VSC 251
Hubbuck & Sons Ltd v Wilkinson Heywood & Clark Ltd [1899] 1 QB 86
McGuirk v University of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 1424
Meckiff v Simpson [1968] VR 62
PWJI v The State of New South Wales [2020] NSWSC 1235
Shelton v National Roads & Motorists Assn Ltd (2004) 51 ACSR 278; [2004] FCA 1393
Szanto v Bainton [2011] NSWSC 985
Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle v AA [2025] NSWCA 72
Wentworth v Rogers (No 5) (1986) 6 NSWLR 534

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Sam Flecknoe (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Pared Ltd (Defendant / Applicant on Motion)
Representation:
Counsel:
J Masur (Plaintiff / Respondent)
J Sleight (Defendant / Applicant on Motion)
Solicitors:
Fern Lawyers (Plaintiff / Respondent)
Thompson Cooper Lawyers (Defendant / Applicant on Motion)

File Number(s): 2024/339635
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 13 September 2024, Mr Sam Flecknoe (“the plaintiff”) filed a statement of claim (“SOC”), seeking…

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 Flecknoe v Pared Ltd

Details

AGLC: Flecknoe v Pared Ltd [2025] NSWSC 775
Case: [2025] NSWSC 775
Decision Date: 22 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flecknoe, the plaintiff, filed an action against Pared Ltd, the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract. Pared Ltd filed a motion to strike out the proceedings, arguing that the plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and were embarrassing. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether they were embarrassing enough to warrant a strike-out. Additionally, Pared Ltd filed an alternative motion for further particulars, seeking more specific details about the plaintiff's claims.

The court dismissed the motion to strike out the proceedings. The plaintiff's pleadings, while not ideal, did disclose a reasonable cause of action, and the court found that they were not so embarrassing as to warrant a strike-out. Regarding the alternative motion for further particulars, the plaintiff conceded that further particulars should be provided. Consequently, the court made an order for the plaintiff to provide further particulars within a specified timeframe. The court held that the plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient in certain areas, and more detailed information was necessary to properly assess the merits of the case and ensure a fair trial.

Orders