Legal Research
Cases
Ittyerah v Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd

Ittyerah v Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd

Case [2022] NSWSC 1048 5 August 2022

Summary Judgment

Dismissal of Proceedings

Limitation Periods

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Ittyerah v Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1048
Hearing dates: 30 November; 1 December 2021
Date of orders: 5 August 2022
Decision date: 05 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision:
See paragraph [114]

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – summary disposal – dismissal of proceedings – no reasonable cause of action disclosed – where plaintiff fails to plead material facts in statement of claim – proceedings commenced against six defendants

Legislation Cited:
Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW), s 3B
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 65, 91, 146
Commonwealth Constitution, s 71
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross-vesting) Act 1987 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), ss 50F, 52
Limitations of Actions Act 1958 (Vic), ss 5, 23, 27D
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.36, 13.4, 14.7
Wrongs Act 1959 (Vic)

Cases Cited:
Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41
Bennett v Talacko [2017] VSCA 163
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69
Ittyerah v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 7404
Ittyerah v Coles Supermarkets (Australia) Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 407
Ittyerah v Coles Supermarkets (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2021] FCA 412
Magill v Magill (2006) 226 CLR 551; [2006] HCA 51
O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia [2013] NSWCA 71
Spencer v The Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28
Sweeney v Boylan Nominees Pty Ltd (2006) 226 CLR 161; [2006] HCA 19
Weston v Publishing and Broadcasting Limited [2011] NSWSC 433
Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537; [2010] HCA 12

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: George Ittyerah (Plaintiff)
Infosys Technologies Systems (First Defendant)
Duncan Taylor (Third Defendant)
Emma Byrne (Fourth Defendant)
State of New South Wales (Fifth Defendant)
Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Sixth Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms C Gleeson for the First Defendant
Ms L P McFee for the Third Defendant
Ms C Coventry for the Fourth Defendant
Mr N Bentley for the Fifth Defendant
Ms V Bulut for the Sixth Defendant
Solicitors:
Bird & Bird Lawyers (First Defendant)
Barry Nilson Lawyers (Third Defendant)
DLA Piper (Fourth Defendant)
Crown Solicitors (Fifth Defendant)
Lander & Rogers (Sixth Defendant)

File Number(s): 2020/00305502

Judgment

By a document styled “Statement of Claim” filed on 26 October 2020, the plaintiff, Mr Ittyerah, purported to commence proceedings against, in substance, five defendants. I will identify the defendants a little later in these reasons. I say “purported to commence proceedings” because Mr Ittyerah did not seek any substantive relief against any of the named defendants in the statement of claim. Rather, he sought orders of an interlocutory type, being orders that: the Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers, direct that he be provided with legal services “on a paid basis” by an unspecified lawyer; alternatively, he…

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 Ittyerah v Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ittyerah v Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1048
Case: [2022] NSWSC 1048
Decision Date: 05 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The proceedings before the Federal Court involved Ittyerah as the plaintiff and Infosys Technologies Pty Ltd as the defendant. The plaintiff brought an action alleging multiple causes of action including breach of statutory duty, negligence, and breach of contract. The case was ultimately dismissed by the Court due to the plaintiff's failure to plead material facts in his statement of claim. The plaintiff had commenced proceedings against six defendants but did not provide sufficient detail to substantiate his claims against them.

The central legal issues the court needed to address were whether the plaintiff had disclosed a reasonable cause of action and whether the claims made against the defendants were adequately supported by the facts pleaded. The court examined the plaintiff's statement of claim to determine if it disclosed facts that would entitle him to relief. The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently pleaded the material facts necessary to support his claims, resulting in the proceedings being dismissed for want of prosecution.

In reaching its decision, the court focused on the requirement that a statement of claim must disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court noted that the plaintiff's statement of claim was deficient in that it failed to provide the necessary details regarding the specific allegations against each defendant. The court held that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a reasonable cause of action as required by the law, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that a plaintiff must adequately plead the facts that underpin their claims to proceed with litigation.

The court ordered the dismissal of the plaintiff's action against all six defendants. The dismissal was without costs, and the plaintiff was directed to pay the defendants' costs on an indemnity basis. This outcome underscores the importance of a plaintiff's duty to plead material facts accurately and comprehensively in order to substantiate their claims.

Orders