LCB Developments Corporation Pty Ltd v Watson Ferguson Holdings Limited

[1990] FCA 239

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) NO. NG 202 OF 1990

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN:  LCB DEVELOPMENTS
CORPORATION PTY LIMITED

AND :  WATSON FERGUSON HOLDINGS
LIMITED & ORS

Flrst Respondent

I & L HODGES PTY LIMITED

Second Respondent

IVAN B IiODGES

Third Respondent

JOHN R SCOTT

Fourth Respondent

STEPHEN W BRENNAN

Fifth Respondent

CORAM:	Davies J.
DATE :	1 June 1990
PLACE:	Sydney
cause of action against the individual respondents, the

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

EX TEMPORE

These are two motions to strike out

8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Statement of Claim. The motlons are

brought on the basis that the statement of clalm does not its present form 1s embarrassing and fails to dlsclose the

comply wlth the rules of pleadings. Mr Sweeney Q.C. and m r

third, fourth and flfth respondents

form is embarrassing. It ralses an allegation that the
third, fourth and fifth respondents represented to the
applicant by statements that the value of the shares of the
First Respondent was between 20 to 53 cents, but then in
paragraph 8 it appears that any statement to that effect was
contained in the report prepared by a company known as
Lothbury Services Llmited who 1s not one of the respondents. It seems to me that the pleading in its present applicant but apparently accompanied a letter addressed to all the shareholders of the first respondent company.

It is difficult to read paragraphs 7 and 8 senslbly

together and I thlnk that it is better that they should be

repleaded rather than be clarified by particulars.

There are various ways of putting the allegation.

It could be put by reference to representations or it can be

put with respect to conduct but what is alleged ought to be
pleaded clearly. At the present tlme, there is confusion as

to that.

For reasons submitted by mr Sweeney, counsel for

the third and fifth respondents, I agree that the following
paragraphs also fall. I think that the whole of those
paragraphs should be struck out and that the applicant
should have leave to re-plead.

The applicant should pay the respondents' costs of

the motlon.

I certify that this and the

preceding 2 pages are a true copy of
the Reasons for Judgment herein of

the Honourable Mr Justlce Davies.

Associate:

Date:  1 June 1990