Piscioneri v Brisciani and Reardon

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

 Piscioneri v Brisciani & Reardon

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 237

Hearing Date(s):

29 June 2017

DecisionDate:

23 August 2017

Before:

McWilliam AsJ

Decision:

1.    The applications filed by the plaintiff on 7 March 2017 are dismissed.

2.    Judgment is entered for the defendants.

3.    The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs.

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 631, 632, 1118, 1452 – application to strike out defences for delay or default – application for summary judgment or summary dismissal – application for further and better particulars – interrogatories – where any default had been remedied – whether limitation period prevents claim from being pursued – where threshold for summary judgment met – where defences had been filed so as to make further compliance with request for particulars unnecessary – applications dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT) s 133

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) ss 56 - 59

Court Procedure Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 433, 430, 434, 630, 631, 632, 1117, 1118, 1122, 1404, 1452

Court Procedures Act 2004 (ACT) s 5A

Limitations Act 1985 (ACT) ss 21B, 33

Cases Cited:

Adams v Dickeson [1974] VR 77

American Flange and ManufacturingCo Inc v Rheem (Australia) Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1965] NSWR 193

Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2008] FCA 592; 248 ALR 573

Barclay Mowlem Constructions Ltd v Dampier Port Authority [2006] WASC 281; 33 WAR 82

Bateman & Primary Healthcare v Nationwide News Pty Limited [2002] ACTSC 73

Bolas v Calvary Health Care Limited [2016] ACTSC 58

Brennand and Naughton v Hartung and Best Practice Education Group Ltd t/as Blue Gum Community School [2014] ACTSC 326

Brisciani v Piscioneri (No 4) [2016] ACTCA 32

Carl Zeiss Stiftung and Others v Rayner and Others [No 2] [1967] 1 AC 853

Champerslife Pty Ltd v Manojlovski & Anor [2010] NSWCA 33

Coal Cliff Collieries Pty Ltd v CE Heath Insurance Broking (Aust) Pty Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 703

Commonwealth of Australia v Mewett (1997) 191 CLR 471

Commonwealth v Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd [2013] ACTSC 37

Conway v Mercedes-Benz Australia/Pacific Pty Ltd ACN 004 411 410 [2010] FCA 72

Crawford v Australian Capital Territory [2015] ACTSC 282

Dale v Western Australia [2011] FCAFC 46; 191 FCR 521

Dare v Pullman (1982) 148 CLR 658

Dunbar v Perc [1956] VLR 583

Dunstan v Highman and Ors [2010] ACTSC 133

Egan-Green v McLean [2017] ACTSC 48

Fiduciary Ltd v Morningstar Research Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 432

Gabriella Jean Piscioneri v Marek Janusz Michael Reardon [2015] ACTSC 61

Galovac Pty Ltd v Australian Capital Territory [2010] ACTSC 132

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125

Gheorghiu v Perpetual Trustees Victoria Ltd [2007] VSCA 83

Hamilton v Australian Capital Territory & Dr Tonks [2011] ACTSC 45

Helmhout v Apostoloff [2011] ACTSC 2

Henderson v Henderson [1843] EngR 917; (1843) 3 Hare 100

Hillebrand v…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Piscioneri v Brisciani and Reardon 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
[2017] ACTSC 237
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Piscioneri commenced proceedings against Brisciani and Reardon in the ACT Supreme Court, seeking damages for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The defendants filed a defence and counterclaimed for costs. The plaintiff subsequently made a number of applications, including an application to strike out the defences for delay or default, an application for summary judgment or summary dismissal, an application for further and better particulars, and an application for interrogatories. The defendants opposed the plaintiff's applications. The court had to decide whether any default by the plaintiff had been remedied, whether the limitation period prevented the claim from being pursued, whether the threshold for summary judgment had been met, and whether the defences had been filed so as to make further compliance with the request for particulars unnecessary. The court found that the plaintiff's default had been remedied, the limitation period did not prevent the claim from being pursued, and the threshold for summary judgment had been met. However, the court also found that the defences had been filed so as to make further compliance with the request for particulars unnecessary. The court dismissed the plaintiff's applications and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications filed by the plaintiff on 7 March 2017 are dismissed.

2. Judgment is entered for the defendants.

3. The plaintiff is to pay the defendants’ costs.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.