In the matter of St Gregory's Armenian School Inc

St Gregory's Armenian School Inc brought an action against its insurer, alleging breaches of contract and misrepresentation in relation to an insurance policy. The insurer filed an application for an order to strike out the further amended statement of claim, arguing that it was seriously deficient against the standard set out in r 14.28(1)(b). The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's pleadings met the required standard and whether the application should be granted. The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings were indeed seriously deficient, failing to disclose a cause of action, and thus, it granted the application to strike out the further amended statement of claim in its entirety. The order was made with liberty to the plaintiff to replead, and the court determined that the matter did not involve any principle of broader significance.

The court's reasoning was that the pleadings did not contain sufficient details to enable the defendant to properly respond to the claims made. The pleadings were vague and lacked particulars, making it impossible to determine the basis of the claims. The court held that the plaintiff's failure to provide a clear and concise statement of the cause of action warranted the striking out of the pleadings. The court emphasised that the purpose of pleadings is to provide fair notice of the claims and to frame the issues for the trial. In this case, the pleadings failed to achieve this purpose, and thus, the application to strike out was successful.

The court's decision to grant the application with liberty to replead was intended to give the plaintiff an opportunity to cure the deficiencies in its pleadings. The court recognised that the plaintiff may have a valid claim, but it was not adequately presented in the pleadings. The court also noted that the matter did not involve any principle of broader significance, and thus, it did not consider it necessary to provide further guidance or commentary on the decision. The final orders were that the further amended statement of claim was struck out in its entirety, and the plaintiff was given liberty to replead within the specified timeframe.