Hookey v Manthey

In the matter of Hookey v Manthey, the plaintiffs sought to establish a claim against several defendants for alleged breaches of an implied duty to cooperate within a joint venture agreement. The claim was predicated on the assertion that the defendants' actions deprived the plaintiffs of the opportunity to share in any benefits which might have arisen from the commercialisation of an engine. The first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants applied to have certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs' statement of claim struck out on the basis that they failed to adequately plead a cause of action for damages for loss of a commercial opportunity.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the plaintiffs could establish causation for their loss by proving a breach of the implied term of the joint venture agreement, without resorting to a hypothetical scenario. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' statement of claim adequately pleaded the necessary facts to support an inference of the fourth defendant's knowledge of the alleged breach of trust, as required by the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs' pleading did not sufficiently explain how the conduct of the defendants caused the plaintiffs to lose the commercial opportunity. Consequently, paragraphs 51 and 52 of the plaintiffs' statement of claim were struck out, with leave to re-plead. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiffs' allegation that the fourth defendant knew the payments were made in breach of trust was unsupported by any material facts in the statement of claim. Given the requirements under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules for pleading knowledge, paragraph 61 of the statement of claim was also struck out, with leave to re-plead. Unless any party wished to submit to the contrary, the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants.