Matthews v Shaw - [2014] SASC 74

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
MATTHEWS & ANOR v SHAW & ORS
[2014] SASC 74
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Stanley
17 June 2014
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - PLEADINGS - GENERALLY
PROCEDURE - SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT - AMENDMENT
Interlocutory application.
This is an application by the sixth and seventh defendants to strike out parts of the plaintiffs’ third statement of claim. In the alternative, the sixth and seventh defendants seek orders for the provision of further and better particulars.
The application also included a request for further and better disclosure of documents in the possession of the plaintiffs. This was not pursued on the hearing of the application.
The sixth and seventh defendants pursued their application in relation to the pleas in paragraphs 22, 22A, 23 and 63.3 of the third statement of claim.
The application was argued on the basis that the present pleading lacked sufficient particularity. On the hearing of the application, the sixth and seventh defendants did not press the application to strike out the pleading, except in relation to paragraph 63.3.
Held:
1. The pleadings in their current form in paragraphs 22, 22A and 23 do not provide fair notice of the plaintiffs’ case (at [11] - [14]).
2. The pleading in paragraph 63.3.3 does not cause the applicants substantial prejudice (at [16] - [22]).
Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 98, r 102, referred to.
Davies v Chicago Boot Co Pty Ltd [No 3] [2007] SASC 399, discussed.
Lucas-Box v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1986] 1 All ER 177; Rupcic v AW Baulderstone Pty Ltd (1987) 46 SASR 99; H Stanke & Sons Pty Ltd v O'Meara (2007) 98 SASR 450, considered.

WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED
"substantial prejudice"

MATTHEWS & ANOR v SHAW & ORS
[2014] SASC 74
Civil

STANLEY J: This is an application by the sixth and seventh defendants, Robert Brook Pty Ltd and Robert Neil Brook, to strike out parts of the plaintiffs’ third statement of claim. In the alternative, the sixth and seventh defendants are seeking orders for the provision of further and better particulars.
The application also included a request for further and better disclosure of documents in the possession of the plaintiffs. This was not pursued on the hearing. The applicants reserved their position as to costs.
The sixth and seventh defendants pursued their application in relation to the pleas in paragraphs 22, 22A, 23 and 63.3 of the third statement of claim.
The application was argued on the basis that the present pleading lacked sufficient particularity. On the hearing of the application, the sixth and seventh defendants did not press the application to strike out the pleading, except in relation to paragraph 63.3, but again reserved their position as to costs.
The background to this application is the sale of a business by the second plaintiff, Be Shaw Pty Ltd (In Liquidation).…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Matthews v Shaw and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] SASC 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Matthews v Shaw, the plaintiffs sought to amend their pleadings to include additional particulars concerning loans made to the defendants, specifically the Waterfront Villas loans and the To Be Shaw loan. The dispute centred around the manner in which the loans were made and the circumstances under which the liability to repay these loans was extinguished. The matter was heard in a court which provided a forum for the plaintiffs to clarify the details of their claims and for the defendants to respond to the allegations made against them.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the plaintiffs' existing plea was sufficiently detailed to provide the defendants with the necessary particulars of the claims against them. The court considered whether the particulars provided in the plea were adequate to inform the defendants of the specific facts that formed the basis of the plaintiffs' claims. Additionally, the court examined whether the form of the existing plea caused substantial prejudice to the defendants, particularly the sixth and seventh defendants, who were the focus of the amended pleadings.

The court concluded that while there was some ambiguity in the form of the plea, it was not sufficiently unclear to warrant an order for the plaintiffs to provide a new pleading. The court determined that the particulars provided were adequate to inform the defendants of the material facts concerning the loans and the extinguishment of liability. However, the court did order the plaintiffs to provide a new pleading incorporating further particulars of the facts material to the allegations in paragraphs 22, 22A and 23 of the third statement of claim. This order aimed to ensure that the defendants had a clear understanding of the specific facts that formed the basis of the plaintiffs' claims, thereby allowing them to prepare an appropriate defence.

The court's decision provided clarity on the requirements for particularity in pleadings and reinforced the importance of ensuring that defendants are adequately informed of the claims against them. The order for the plaintiffs to provide a new pleading with further particulars aimed to facilitate a more transparent and fair legal process for both parties.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

There is some ambiguity in the manner in which the plea has been framed so that it is not clear whether the particulars in sub-paragraph 63.3.3 are intended to provide particularity of the plea in sub-paragraph 63.3.2 only, or the facts pleaded in sub-paragraphs 63.1 - 63.3. As I say, I understand from Mr Roberts that it is the latter. I consider this is now clear, but the plaintiffs may wish to give some consideration to clarifying the plea formally. In the circumstances, however, I am not prepared to make an order in those terms. Substantial prejudice is not occasioned to the sixth and seventh defendants by the form of the existing plea. Conclusion I would order the plaintiffs to provide a new pleading incorporating further particulars of the facts material to the allegations in paragraphs 22, 22A and 23 of the third statement of claim concerning how the Waterfront Villas loans and the To Be Shaw loan were made and the liability to repay was extinguished.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.