Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa

Case [2023] ACTMC 27


MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa

Citation: 

[2023] ACTMC 27

Hearing Dates: 

14 June 2023

Decision Date: 

4 August 2023

Before:

Magistrate Temby

Decision: 

See [165].

Catchwords: 

CIVIL PROCEDURE – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – strike out application – whether Third-Party statement of claim discloses reasonable cause of action – where pleading fails to comply with the procedural rules to such an extent that it fails to expose the case the party intends to run – whether leave to replead should be given – where certain causes of action sufficiently disclosed to warrant granting of leave to replead

Legislation Cited: 

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) ss 124A, 124B

Construction Occupations (Licensing) Act 2004 (ACT) ss 28, 31

Construction Occupations (Licensing) Regulation 2004 (ACT) r 19

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 20, 302, 303, 406, 407, 430, 432, 425, 1147

Cases Cited: 

Clarence City Council v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCAFC 134; (2020) 280 FCR 265

Findex Group Limited v McKay [2022] ACTSC 192

Georges v Georges [2022] NSWDC 558

M1 v R1 & Ors [2022] NSWDC 409

Manny v Commonwealth of Australia; Manny v University of Canberra [2023] ACTSC 160

Prior v South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council Aboriginal Corporation [2020] FCA 808

Parties: 

Heaven Builders Pty Ltd ( Plaintiff)

Nour Moustafa ( First Defendant)

Marwa Moustafa ( Second Defendant)

Khalil Khattak ( First Third-Party)

Muhammad Naizi ( Second Third-Party)

Mice Kljusuric ( Third Third-Party)

Syeda Gul ( Fourth Third-Party)

Representation: 

Counsel

B Buckland ( Plaintiff, Third-Parties)

Solicitors

Bradley Allen Love Lawyers ( Plaintiff, Third-Parties)

Self-Represented ( First Defendant)

Self-Represented ( Second Defendant)

File Number:

CS 182 of 2022

MAGISTRATE TEMBY:

Table of Contents

Introduction

Summary

Litigation context for Third-Party claims

Third-Party claims

First Third-Party statement of claim

Second Third-Party claim

Third Third-Party claim

Fourth Third-Party claim

Summary judgment / Strike out application

Position of the Third-Parties

Position of the Defendants

Relevant Rules

Third-Party claims

Pleadings

Rules governing summary judgment / strike out applications

Principles applicable to the determination of summary judgment / strike out applications

Consideration

Third-Party notices

First and Second Third-Party claims – alleged breaches of the Second Contract

First Third-Party claim – other possible claims

Disposition of application in relation to the First Third-Party claim

Second Third-Party claim – other possible claims

Disposition of application in relation to the Second Third-Party claim

Third Third-Party claim

Fourth Third-Party claim

Costs

Orders


Introduction

1․The proceedings concern a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with respect to the Plaintiff’s construction of a residential dwelling for the Defendants. The Defendants filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff and also filed four Third-Party claims. This decision concerns a summary dismissal application made by the four Third-Parties.

2․Specifically, by an Application in Proceeding filed on 18 May 2023, Khalil Khattak (the First Third-Party), Muhammad Niazi (the Second Third-Party), Mice Kljusuric (the Third Third-Party) and Syeda Gul (the Fourth Third-Party), seek summary judgment in relation to third-party claims that have been brought against…

Continue reading Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Heaven Builders Pty Ltd v Moustafa [2023] ACTMC 27
Case
[2023] ACTMC 27
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, Heaven Builders Pty Ltd sought to strike out a Third-Party Statement of Claim filed by Moustafa. The dispute centred around the validity and sufficiency of Moustafa's claim against a third party, which was introduced after Heaven Builders initiated proceedings against Moustafa. The primary legal issue was whether Moustafa's Third-Party Statement of Claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and complied with the procedural rules, or if it should be struck out due to significant non-compliance.

The court examined whether Moustafa's pleading sufficiently disclosed a cause of action against the third party and if it complied with the procedural requirements to the extent necessary to expose the intended case. The court held that while the pleading had deficiencies, certain causes of action were sufficiently disclosed. The court concluded that Moustafa should be granted leave to amend the pleading to address the deficiencies, ensuring that it complied with procedural rules and properly exposed the intended case. This decision balanced the need for procedural fairness with the requirements of a just and efficient legal process.

The court ordered that Moustafa be granted leave to amend the Third-Party Statement of Claim within a specified timeframe, with the caveat that any further non-compliance could result in the application to strike out being re-considered. This ruling allowed Moustafa to correct the deficiencies in the pleading, ensuring that the case could proceed in a manner consistent with procedural fairness and the principles of justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [165].

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.