National Australia Bank Ltd v Bluanya Pty Ltd

The matter before the Court was an application by National Australia Bank Ltd (the plaintiff) against Bluanya Pty Ltd (the second defendant) for summary judgment and an order striking out certain paragraphs of the amended defence and counterclaim. The dispute arose from the alleged default of the second defendant in relation to loan agreements with the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought orders that the second defendant deliver up possession of the land subject of the loan agreement or otherwise pay moneys to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement. The second defendant claimed misleading and deceptive conduct and that the plaintiff breached the agreement. The Court was required to determine whether the second defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the relevant part of the plaintiff’s claim, and whether there was no need for a trial of the relevant part of the plaintiff’s claim.

The Court found that the application for summary judgment was not successful, as the second defendant had raised a number of issues that could not be resolved on the papers alone. The Court was of the view that the second defendant’s claims of misleading and deceptive conduct and breach of contract required a trial. The Court also found that the plaintiff’s application to strike out certain paragraphs of the amended defence and counterclaim should be granted, as they contained material that was irrelevant, vague, scandalous, and an abuse of the court process. The Court ordered that the whole of the amended defence and counterclaim be struck out and that the second defendant be given liberty to replead.

The orders of the Court were that the whole of the amended defence and counterclaim be struck out and the second defendant be given liberty to replead. The Court also ordered that the further amended defence and counterclaim be filed and served by 30 April 2018. The Court refused the application for summary judgment and ordered that the parties provide submissions as to costs by 20 March 2018. The Court listed the matter before Mullins J for review at 9:15 am on 7 June 2018. The Court emphasised that the matter was complex and required careful consideration of the evidence and arguments. The Court urged the parties to approach the matter with a view to resolving the dispute as quickly and efficiently as possible.