JUDGE:	BONGIORNO J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9, 10 and 14 March 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Gunns v Marr (No. 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 329

---

Courts – practice and procedure – striking out statement of claim – 714 paragraphs – 20 defendants – embarrassing pleading – conclusionary words inappropriate in a pleading – too many allegations against too many defendants – multiple conspiracies – difficulty of interlocutory processes and trial – injustices to defendants – inconvenience of multiple allegations against large number of defendants – RSC rr 9.04, 23.01, 23.02.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr S. Howells with Mr M. Irving and Mr B. Ross	EMA Legal
For the First, Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants	Mr P Bornstein	Phillips Fox
For the Second and Sixth Defendants	Mr D. Beach SC, with Mr S. O’Meara	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
For the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Defendants	Mr M. Dreyfus QC with Mr M. Gronow and Mr C. Thomson	Herbert Geer and Rundle
For the Tenth and Eleventh Defendants	Mr L. Maher	Wisewoulds
For the Twelfth Defendant	Mr T. Mitchell	Fitzgerald & Browne, Hobart
For the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Defendants	Mr N. Murdoch	Maurice Blackburn Cashman
For the Nineteenth Defendant	Mr J. Burnside QC, with Ms J. Benson	Norton White
For the Twentieth Defendant	Mr B. Walters SC with Mr N. Russell	Coadys

HIS HONOUR:

On 18 July 2005 the Court refused the plaintiffs leave to file an amended statement of claim in this proceeding, which was commenced by writ on 13 December 2004. Leave was granted to the plaintiffs, however, to produce a new statement of claim to be referred to as Version 3, taking into account the judgment in respect of Version 2. That judgment sets out the pleading history of this case up to 18 July 2005, and the reason Version 2 was not permitted to be filed and the principles of law and procedure applied in reaching that conclusion. It is published in the Court's published judgments.[1] Accordingly the matters set out in it do not need to be repeated.
[1][2005] VSC 251

The statement of claim originally filed with the writ in this proceeding was of 216 pages containing 529 paragraphs. Version 2 which was not permitted to be filed was of 360 pages and an unknown number of paragraphs because of the numbering system used. Version 3 of the statement of claim which was filed on 15 August 2005 is of 221 pages together with a separate table of contents and glossary of terms. It contains 714 paragraphs. That document which is the subject of this application to strike it out will be referred to in this judgment as…

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 Gunns Ltd v Marr (No. 2)

Details

AGLC: Gunns Ltd v Marr (No. 2) [2006] VSC 329
Case: [2006] VSC 329
Decision Date: 28 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gunns Ltd was the plaintiff and Marr was the defendant in a case before the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought damages for defamation, malicious falsehood, and economic loss, with the claim containing 714 paragraphs. The defendant moved to have the statement of claim struck out due to its excessive length, inappropriate use of conclusionary words, and the inclusion of multiple conspiracies and allegations against 20 defendants. The court had to decide whether the statement of claim was maintainable or if it should be struck out in its entirety or in part.

The court considered the relevant rules of the Federal Court of Australia and the Rules of the Supreme Court (RSC). The court held that the statement of claim was excessively long and contained numerous inappropriate conclusionary words, which were not suitable for a pleading. The court also noted the difficulties that would arise in interlocutory processes and at trial due to the large number of allegations and defendants. The court concluded that striking out the entire statement of claim was necessary to prevent injustice to the defendants and to avoid significant inconvenience.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike out the entire statement of claim, finding that it was embarrassing and unmanageable. The court ordered that the plaintiff could file an amended statement of claim, with strict limits on the number of paragraphs and the nature of the allegations. The court emphasised the need for a clear, concise, and appropriate pleading to ensure a fair trial for all parties involved.

No final orders were made in this excerpt, as the plaintiff was given the opportunity to file an amended statement of claim within the specified parameters.

Orders