Levy v Bablis

The case of Levy v Bablis involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Levy, and the defendant, Mr. Bablis, over alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and professional misconduct. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had breached his fiduciary duties by acting in a way that was not in the plaintiff's best interests and by accepting a separate commission without disclosure. The defendant sought to have certain allegations struck out as irrelevant or vague, arguing that they did not contribute to the plaintiff's claim for damages.

The court was tasked with determining whether certain allegations in the plaintiff's statement of claim should be struck out. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the allegation that the defendant had intended to take a separate commission constituted a breach of fiduciary duty with no other relationship to the claim for damages, and whether the particularisation of a fiduciary duty as including a proscriptive duty of disclosure was sufficient. The court had to balance the plaintiff's right to particularise his claims against the defendant's right to a clear and concise statement of claim that was fair and not oppressive.

In considering the matter, the court held that the allegation of the defendant's intention to take a separate commission did have a relationship to the plaintiff's claim for damages and could not be struck out. The court reasoned that the intention to take a separate commission was relevant to the issue of breach of fiduciary duty and could potentially affect the quantum of damages. Regarding the particularisation of the fiduciary duty, the court found that it was sufficient for the plaintiff to allege a breach of fiduciary duty without having to specify every aspect of the duty in detail. The court emphasised that while particulars should be sufficient to give the defendant fair notice of the claim, they need not be exhaustive.

The court ordered that the allegations regarding the defendant's intention to take a separate commission and the particularisation of the fiduciary duty as including a proscriptive duty of disclosure were to be retained in the plaintiff's statement of claim. The defendant's application to strike out these allegations was dismissed.