Perpetual Trustees Australia Limited v OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs, a group of shopping centre owners, filed a lawsuit against the defendant, OneSteel Trading Pty Ltd, alleging negligence in the installation of fire protection systems. The plaintiffs claimed damages due to alleged defects in the pipework installed at 16 shopping centres. The defendants sought to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim or, in the alternative, sought summary judgment. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' claims should be pleaded separately or could be rolled up into one generalised allegation. The court had to determine if the plaintiffs' statement of claim was adequate and if the defendants' application to strike out the statement of claim or for summary judgment could be granted. The court also needed to consider if the defendants' factual matters raised a defence to the whole claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims should be pleaded separately as rolling up the complaints about the pipework installed in the fire protection systems at 16 shopping centres into one generalised allegation was inappropriate. The plaintiffs had not pleaded sufficient material facts and particulars. Consequently, the statement of claim was struck out with leave to replead. However, the factual matters relied on by the defendants did not raise a defence to the whole claim. Additionally, it was premature to decide whether the defendants owed the plaintiffs a duty to take reasonable care not to cause them pure economic loss. Therefore, the application for summary judgment was dismissed.

This decision underscores the importance of adequately pleading claims separately and with sufficient detail to avoid a strike-out. The court's ruling also highlights the necessity for careful consideration of the timing and circumstances in which summary judgment applications are made.