Giblett v Robe

[2000] WASC 88

GIBLETT -v- ROBE & ORS [2000] WASC 88

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASC 88
Case No:	CIV:2065/1999	Heard:	3 APRIL 2000
Coram:	MASTER BREDMEYER	Delivered:	4/04/00
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application allowed in part
PDF Version

Parties:	MICHEALA GIBLETT KEVIN ROBE GINO GIOVANNI MORIETTI JEANETTE MARY CAMPBELL
Catchwords:	Pleading Particulars Further and better particulars
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : GIBLETT -v- ROBE & ORS [2000] WASC 88 CORAM : MASTER BREDMEYER HEARD : 3 APRIL 2000 DELIVERED : 4 APRIL 2000 FILE NO/S : CIV 2065 of 1999 BETWEEN : MICHEALA GIBLETT

Plaintiff

AND

KEVIN ROBE
First Defendant

GINO GIOVANNI MORIETTI
JEANETTE MARY CAMPBELL
Second Defendants

Catchwords:

Pleading - Particulars - Further and better particulars

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application allowed in part

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff : Mr B L de Lestang
First Defendant : Mr J D Steedman
Second Defendants : Mr J D Steedman

Solicitors:

Plaintiff : Benjamin & de Lestang
First Defendant : Karp & Steedman
Second Defendants : Karp & Steedman

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MASTER BREDMEYER: This is an application by the defendants for further and better particulars of the substituted statement of claim (the statement of claim). The defendants requested particulars and they have been answered in a document from the plaintiff dated 12 February 2000. The defendants want further and better answers to questions 1, 2 and 3.

2 Regarding question 1, I consider the plea could have been more fully expressed but I think it is adequate. From the particulars in 6.1.3 and 6.1.4, it is to be implied that each of the second defendants agreed to hold their units in trust for the first defendant. That is readily inferred from the fact that the first defendant holds signed transfers from them and is thus able to effect transfer of those units to himself at any time.

3 Regarding question 2(a)(ii), I consider the oral representation that the plaintiff was a co-owner of the business is pleaded adequately. The representations by conduct are also pleaded adequately. She worked like an owner rather than an employee, eg at times she purchased goods for the business on her own credit card, she chose the hours she worked, only she and the first defendant were allowed to drink alcohol on the premises and she split the cash proceeds with him at the end of the day.

4 I consider particulars of the family and friends in the UK mentioned, to whom the representations were made, should be given. Further particulars of when the conversations occurred are not necessary.

5 Regarding question 3, I consider the reference to par 9 and par 13 of the pleading and the brief additional particulars provided are adequate. The substance of it is that the first defendant's offer was oral and the plaintiff's acceptance was by conduct. In early 1996 the defendant offered the plaintiff, who was his defacto, a joint beneficial interest with himself in the business and she in turn was required to work in the business. She accepted that by working in the business, including working extended hours, with deferred pay, assuming major responsibilities for the accounts, and at times purchasing supplies with her own credit card. I consider this plea is adequate.

6 I will order the plaintiff to provide further and better particulars of the plaintiff's family and friends in the UK referred to in answer 2(a)(ii) within 14 days. Costs of this application are the defendants' costs in the cause.