Granite Transformations Pty Ltd v Apex Distributions Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2018] FCA 725
•22 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Granite Transformations Pty Ltd v Apex Distributions Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 725
[2018] FCA 725
22 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court was an application by the first and third respondents, Apex Distributions Pty Ltd and Mr McDonald, to strike out certain parts of the further amended statement of claim filed by Granite Transformations Pty Ltd, the applicant. The dispute centred around the sufficiency of the further amended statement of claim in appraising the respondents of the case against them, specifically whether each element of each cause of action pleaded was properly articulated.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the further amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded each element of the causes of action and whether it was necessary to strike out certain paragraphs of the pleadings while allowing the applicant leave to re-plead. The court had to assess whether the applicant's pleadings were clear enough to inform the respondents of the precise allegations against them, particularly in light of the extensive cross-referencing within the document.
The court found that while the further amended statement of claim was challenging to follow due to its numerous cross-references, it contained sufficient facts to support the claims made. The court concluded that certain paragraphs, such as paragraph [15M], were not sufficiently pleaded and thus struck them out in accordance with r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). However, the applicant was granted leave to re-plead the cause of action that was struck out. The court's decision was based on the principle that each cause of action must be clearly articulated in the pleadings to ensure the respondents are fully apprised of the allegations against them.
In conclusion, the court ordered that paragraph [15M] of the applicant’s further amended statement of claim dated 27 March 2018 be struck out and granted the applicant leave to re-plead the cause of action. This decision ensures that the respondents are adequately informed of the claims against them while allowing the applicant an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in their pleadings.
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the further amended statement of claim sufficiently pleaded each element of the causes of action and whether it was necessary to strike out certain paragraphs of the pleadings while allowing the applicant leave to re-plead. The court had to assess whether the applicant's pleadings were clear enough to inform the respondents of the precise allegations against them, particularly in light of the extensive cross-referencing within the document.
The court found that while the further amended statement of claim was challenging to follow due to its numerous cross-references, it contained sufficient facts to support the claims made. The court concluded that certain paragraphs, such as paragraph [15M], were not sufficiently pleaded and thus struck them out in accordance with r 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). However, the applicant was granted leave to re-plead the cause of action that was struck out. The court's decision was based on the principle that each cause of action must be clearly articulated in the pleadings to ensure the respondents are fully apprised of the allegations against them.
In conclusion, the court ordered that paragraph [15M] of the applicant’s further amended statement of claim dated 27 March 2018 be struck out and granted the applicant leave to re-plead the cause of action. This decision ensures that the respondents are adequately informed of the claims against them while allowing the applicant an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies in their pleadings.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Standing
-
Discovery & Disclosure
-
Res Judicata
-
Breach of Contract
-
Inducing Breach of Contract
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Masti v Finohelp Support Pty Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 134
Cases Citing This Decision
144
Tapping v Empress Diamonds Pty Ltd ATF Empress Discretionary Trust
[2021] FCCA 1335
Edgar v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia Services
[2019] FCCA 1869
Edgar v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia Services
[2019] FCCA 1869
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
2
Young Investments Group Pty Ltd v Mann
[2012] FCAFC 107
Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd (No 2)
[2011] WASCA 17
Modra v Victoria
[2012] FCA 240