FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pizzino v Caratti [2023] FCA 1624
File number: WAD 230 of 2023 Judgment of: COLVIN J Date of judgment: 18 December 2023 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to strike out statement of claim - where not possible to ascertain causes of action with clarity - where claim of fraud and knowing participation in breach of trust not supported by material facts - where relief sought against non-parties - where respondent alleged application is out of time, is an abuse of process or is scandalous - where respondent did not seek order dismissing proceedings - statement of claim struck out - ordered applicants have liberty to replead - ordered statement of claim to be removed from court file Cases cited: Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales [2010] FCAFC 133; (2010) 189 FCR 356
Oztech Pty Ltd v Public Trustee of Queensland [2019] FCAFC 102; (2019) 269 FCR 349
Wardley Australia Ltd v State of Western Australia (1992) 175 CLR 514
Division: General Division Registry: Western Australia National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 29 Date of hearing: 18 December 2023 Counsel for the Applicants: Mr BW Duckham Solicitor for the Applicants: Duckham & Co Counsel for the Respondent: Mr CG Mofflin Solicitor for the Respondent: Alan Rumsley - Commercial Lawyer ORDERS
WAD 230 of 2023 BETWEEN: ALBERTO PIZZINO
First Applicant
MARIA MCKENNA
Second Applicant
ROSA TRICOLI
Third Applicant
GINA TRAVAGLINI
Fourth Applicant
AND: ALLEN BRUCE CARATTI
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
COLVIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
18 DECEMBER 2023
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The statement of claim be struck out.
2.The statement of claim be removed from the court file.
3.The question whether orders should be made in terms of the minute of orders filed by the applicant on 23 November 2023 be adjourned until the next case management hearing.
4.The applicants do file and serve a substitute statement of claim on or before 16 February 2024.
5.The question whether any order should be made as to costs of service of the proceedings be determined at the next case management hearing.
6.The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLVIN J:
Mr Alberto Pizzino, Ms Maria McKenna, Ms Rosa Tricoli and Ms Gina Travaglini (Former Owners) claim that they were formerly the registered proprietors of a property in Perth. It is referred to as Lot 76. They say that in 2005 they granted an exclusive option to purchase part of Lot 76 to West Swan Land Corporation Pty Ltd (WSLC) as trustee of the West Swan Land Trust (Trust). For present purposes it is sufficient to observe that they claim that under the terms of the option they transferred the whole of Lot 76 to WSLC on…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Pizzino v Caratti 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1624
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the statement of claim was so deficient in clarity and material facts that it warranted being struck out. Key issues included the possibility of ascertaining the causes of action, the adequacy of the facts supporting the allegations, and the appropriateness of seeking relief against non-parties. The court also considered the respondent’s failure to seek an outright dismissal of the proceedings.
The court found that the statement of claim did not sufficiently articulate the causes of action, lacked material facts to support the allegations of fraud and knowing participation in a breach of trust, and improperly sought relief against non-parties. Caratti did not seek outright dismissal but challenged the application on procedural and substantive grounds. Given these findings, the court ordered the statement of claim to be struck out, removed from the court file, and gave the applicants liberty to replead within a specified timeframe. The court further directed that the applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application. The questions regarding other orders were adjourned to a later case management hearing.
The court's final orders included the striking out of the statement of claim, its removal from the court file, and a directive for the applicants to file a substitute statement of claim by a specified date. The court also ordered the applicants to pay the respondent's costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim. Other orders, including those concerning the minute of orders and costs of service, were to be determined at the next case management hearing.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The statement of claim be struck out.
2. The statement of claim be removed from the court file.
3. The question whether orders should be made in terms of the minute of orders filed by the applicant on 23 November 2023 be adjourned until the next case management hearing.
4. The applicants do file and serve a substitute statement of claim on or before 16 February 2024.
5. The question whether any order should be made as to costs of service of the proceedings be determined at the next case management hearing.
6. The applicants pay the respondent's costs of the application to strike out the statement of claim in any event.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.