Litigation Capital Partners LLP Pte Ltd (Registration No 200922518M) v ACN 117 641 004 Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (formerly known as Vale Cash Management Fund Pty Ltd) [No 2]

The case involves Litigation Capital Partners LLP Pte Ltd (LCP) as the plaintiff, and ACN 117 641 004 Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (formerly known as Vale Cash Management Fund Pty Ltd) (Vale) as the first defendant, with Mr Jones and Mr Smith being the second and third defendants. The dispute centres around applications to strike out parts of the pleadings made by the fourth defendant, HBF, and Vale's counterclaim against LCP and Mr Jones and Mr Smith. The court had to decide whether the amendments to the pleadings complied with the previous orders and whether they met the criteria for being struck out as being scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or likely to prejudice or delay the fair trial of the action.

The court considered the nature and extent of the amendments to HBF's defence and counterclaim, as well as Vale's counterclaim, in light of the previous orders and the principles governing the striking out of pleadings. The court noted that the pleadings were still complex and prolix, despite the previous directions. The court examined whether the amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action, whether they could prejudice, embarrass, or delay the fair trial of the action, and whether they were scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious. The court also considered whether the inclusion of the paragraphs in the pleadings after the previous orders was an abuse of process.

The court found that the further amended pleadings by HBF and Vale still did not sufficiently address the issues previously identified and that the pleadings remained unnecessarily complicated. The court concluded that the amendments did not comply with the previous orders and that the pleadings met the criteria for being struck out. The court granted the applications to strike out certain paragraphs of HBF's further amended defence and counterclaim and certain paragraphs of Vale's counterclaim. The court noted that the pleadings should be clear, concise, and particularised to avoid further strikes out applications.

The court ordered that certain paragraphs of HBF's further amended defence and counterclaim, as well as certain paragraphs of Vale's counterclaim, be struck out. The court also ordered that HBF and Vale file and serve further amended defences and counterclaims by a specified date. The court warned that further failure to comply with the orders or to file particularised pleadings would result in further consequences, including potential costs orders against the parties.