Legal Research
Cases
Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd

Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd

Case [2020] NSWSC 579 18 May 2020

Jurisdiction

Strike out/summary judgment application

Adequacy of pleading

Reasonable cause of action

Tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 579
Hearing dates: 6 May 2020
Date of orders: 18 May 2020
Decision date: 18 May 2020
Jurisdiction: Equity
Before: Ward CJ in Eq
Decision:
1.   Order the plaintiffs to re-plead [53] of the statement of claim in order to specify with particularity the material facts matters and circumstances on which they rely for the allegation there contained.
2.   Direct the plaintiffs to file and serve an amended statement of claim (encompassing the amendments for which leave was granted in 2019 and complying with order 1 above) within 14 days and, to the extent necessary, grant leave for the filing of that amended pleading.
3.   Direct the defendants to file and serve within 28 days thereafter their defence to the amended statement of claim.
4.   Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion filed by the first defendant with costs.

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Pleadings — Strike out/summary judgment application — Adequacy of pleading — Whether reasonable cause of action — Whether tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 59
Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.1, 14.8, 14.14,14.28
Cases Cited: ACN 074 971 109 v The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd [2010] VSC 186
Air Services Australia v Zarb [1998] NSWCA 7
Allison v Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 5
Allstate Life Insurance Co v Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (1995) 58 FCR 26
Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) [2009] NSWCA 104
Arthur Young v Tieco International (1999) 182 LSJS 367
Banque Commerciale SA (in Liq) v Akhil Holdings Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 279; [1990] HCA 11
Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd v Dampier Port Authority (2006) 33 WAR 82; [2006] WASC 281
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Ltd v Williamson [2017] NSWSC 939
Bond Corp Pty Ltd v Thiess Contractors Pty Ltd (1987) 14 FCR 215
Booker Industries Proprietary Limited v Wilson Parking (Qld) Proprietary Limited (1982) 149 CLR 600; [1982] HCA 53
Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697
CA & CA Ballan Pty Ltd v Oliver Hume (Australia) Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 11
Caason Investments Pty Ltd v Cao (2015) 236 FCR 322; [2015] FCAFC 94
Callahan v O’Neill [2002] NSWSC 877
Collier v Country Women’s Association of New South Wales [2017] NSWCA 22
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ZYX Learning Centres Limited [2014] NSWSC 1676
Commonwealth of Australia v Griffiths (2007) 70 NSWLR 268; [2007] NSWCA 370
Cosmos E-C Commerce Pty Ltd v Sue Bidwell & Associates Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 81
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353
Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners (1949) 78 CLR 62; [1949] HCA 1
E Co [a pseudonym] v Q [a pseudonym] (No 4) [2019] NSWSC 429
F&G Sykes (Wessex) Ltd v…

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 Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lucantonio v Benscrape Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 579
Case: [2020] NSWSC 579
Decision Date: 18 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between Lucantonio and Benscrape Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Lucantonio filed a claim against Benscrape Pty Ltd, asserting breaches of contract and seeking damages. Benscrape Pty Ltd responded by filing an application to strike out the pleadings, arguing that Lucantonio's statement of claim was inadequate and did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. Benscrape Pty Ltd contended that Lucantonio's claim was vague and lacked sufficient detail, leading to potential prejudice, embarrassment, and delay in the proceedings.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Lucantonio's statement of claim was adequate and whether it disclosed a reasonable cause of action. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the statement of claim had a tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings. The adequacy of the pleadings was crucial, as it would determine whether the claim could proceed to trial or if it should be dismissed.

The court found that Lucantonio's statement of claim, while not perfect, did disclose a reasonable cause of action. The court observed that the pleadings contained sufficient particulars to inform Benscrape Pty Ltd of the nature of the claim and the basis upon which it was made. The court noted that while the pleadings could have been more detailed, they were adequate for the purposes of the application to strike out. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no significant tendency for the pleadings to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay in the proceedings. As a result, the application to strike out was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed Benscrape Pty Ltd's application to strike out the pleadings, allowing Lucantonio's claim to proceed. The court held that the statement of claim was adequate and disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and it did not have a significant tendency to cause prejudice, embarrassment, or delay.

Orders