Perceptual Development Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd - [1988] FCA 464

JUDGMENT No.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

C A T C H W O R D S

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - pleading - particulars - specific
discovery.
Federal Court Rules 0.15 r.8

PERCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v VERSI PTY LTD, DONALD LEE
ZIMMERMAN and WINIFRED CAROLINE ZIMMERbAN
NO. WAG 18 Of 1981
FRENCH J.
PERTH

1 7 AUGUST 1988

IN THE FEDERAL COURT )
OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA 1

DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

GENERAL DIVISION No. WAG 78 of 1987
B E T W E E N :

PERCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT COR ORA ION
Applicant
and
VERSI PTY LTD

i'

First Respondent i
and
DONALD LEE ZIPIPIERMAN
Second Respondent

and i .
WINIFRED CAROLINE ZIMMERMAN
Third Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER \
i
:
! .1

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J.

DATE OF ORDER: 17 AUGUST 1988

PERTH MADE: WHERE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

A. On the Respondents' motion filed 26 July 1988:-

1. The respondents have leave to amend the defence in

accordance with the minute filed on 26 July 1988. 1 .
!
2. The respondents have leave to amend their further and better particulars of defence in accordance with the

i minute filed in Court on 17 August 1988.

3 . Filing and service of the Minutes stand as filing and
service of the amended pleading and particulars.

4. The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs of the

motion and any costs thrown a ay in any event.
5. The applicant do on or before 31 August 1988 file and deliver further and better particulars in answer to

request ll(g) in the respondents' request dated 18 may

I

1988.

B. On the applicant ' S motion filed 15 July 1988:-

1. Paragraph 5 (f)(i) of the re-amended defence is struck
out.
2. All words after and including "or alternatively" up to and including "the licensing agreement" in paragraph 7
of the re-amended defence are struck out.
3 . The respondents are to plead their positive case in

answer to paragraphs 6A and 11B of the re-amended
statement of claim.

4.

The respondents will have leave to file and deliver a

further amended defence on or before 7 September 1988.

I

5. The respondent will have leave to file and deliver

substituted particulars of the amended defence on or
before 14 September 1988.

6. No order as to the costs of the motion, but the

respondents are to pay the applicant's costs thrown away

by reason of the further amendments to the defence or

particulars. ! '
, -.

l . The applicant is to file and deliver any reply by 28
September 1988.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in
Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT )

AUSTRALIA OF 1

WESTERN AUSTRALIA )

DISTRICT REGISTRY 1

GENERAL DIVISION ) No. WAG 78 of 1987

B E T W E E N : PERCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT COR ORA ION
Applicant
and
VERSI PTY LTD

First Respondent I
i

and 1''
DONALD LEE ZIMMERMAN
Second Respondent

and

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 Perceptual Development Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd 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: [1988] FCA 464
Decision Date: 17 Aug 1988

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Perceptual Development Corporation v Versi Pty Ltd and others concerns motions to amend the respondents' defence and particulars of defence, as well as a motion to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence and particulars. The Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice French, heard the motions on 17 August 1988. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the respondents were entitled to amend their defence and particulars, and whether certain parts of the defence and particulars should be struck out due to insufficiency or redundancy.

Justice French allowed the respondents to amend their defence and particulars, subject to the applicant's motion to strike out certain parts of the defence. Regarding the applicant's motion, the Court found that some parts of the defence and particulars were insufficient or redundant and ordered their removal. Specifically, the Court struck out paragraph 5(f)(i) of the re-amended defence for being defective, and all words after "or alternatively" up to and including "the licensing agreement" in paragraph 7 of the re-amended defence for raising a false issue. Additionally, the Court directed the respondents to plead their positive case in answer to paragraphs 6A and 11B of the re-amended statement of claim.

The Court further allowed the respondents to file a further amended defence and substituted particulars by specific dates, while requiring the applicant to provide further and better particulars in response to a particular request. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay certain costs associated with the motions. This decision highlights the importance of clear and sufficient pleadings in legal proceedings and the Court's role in ensuring that the proceedings are conducted fairly and efficiently.

Orders