Port Kennedy Golf Country Club Pty Ltd v Port Kennedy Resorts Pty Ltd

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Port Kennedy Golf Country Club Pty Ltd and Port Kennedy Resorts Pty Ltd. The golf club alleged that the resort breached a contract and caused the club financial losses. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The golf club sought to strike out certain parts of the resort's plea on the basis that it was not in proper form, included multiple propositions in a single paragraph, contained denials in the statement of claim, and failed to plead material facts relating to causation.

The court had to determine whether the plea was in proper form, whether it was necessary to strike out parts of it, and whether the resort's failure to plead certain facts constituted a substantial defect. The court also considered whether striking out parts of the plea would cause embarrassment to the resort. The golf club argued that the resort's plea was not in proper form and that striking out certain parts was necessary to avoid confusion and ensure a fair trial. The resort, on the other hand, contended that its plea was sufficient and that striking out parts of it would cause embarrassment.

The court held that certain parts of the resort's plea should be struck out. The court found that the plea was not in proper form, as it contained multiple propositions in a single paragraph and denials in the statement of claim. The court also found that the resort's failure to plead material facts relating to causation constituted a substantial defect. However, the court held that striking out parts of the plea would not cause embarrassment to the resort, as the resort had not raised any new defences or allegations in its plea. The court therefore ordered that certain parts of the plea be struck out, but allowed the resort to amend its plea to address the deficiencies identified by the court.

In conclusion, the court ordered that certain parts of the resort's plea be struck out and that the resort be given an opportunity to amend its plea. The court held that the resort's plea was not in proper form and that striking out parts of it was necessary to avoid confusion and ensure a fair trial. The court also found that the resort's failure to plead material facts relating to causation constituted a substantial defect. However, the court held that striking out parts of the plea would not cause embarrassment to the resort, as the resort had not raised any new defences or allegations in its plea.