Power Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd (No 3)

In the matter of Power Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd (No 3), the primary concern was the adequacy of the particulars provided by the defendant, Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd, in response to a request from Power Infrastructure Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether the particulars supplied were sufficient to enable the plaintiff to know the case they had to meet, in accordance with established principles of pleading. This case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The court was required to decide whether the particulars provided by the defendant were sufficient under the principles of pleading and whether any further requests for particulars were necessary. The core issue was whether the particulars provided were adequate for the plaintiff to understand the case they had to meet, without delving into the specifics of the evidence that would be presented. The court also had to balance the overarching purpose of litigation efficiency against the need for clarity in pleadings.

The court held that the particulars provided were adequate and that further requests for particulars were unnecessary. The judge referred to the Deemah Marble & Granite case, emphasising that the function of particulars is to alert the opponent to the scope of the case being made, without requiring the disclosure of evidence. The judge concluded that the particulars provided by the defendant met this standard and that no further requests were necessary at that stage. Consequently, the motion was dismissed with costs.

The final orders were that the respondent, Downer EDI Engineering Power Pty Ltd, was required to provide particulars of the further information giving rise to the alleged estoppel or waiver and/or acknowledgment pleaded in subparagraph 29(a) of the amended defence, and to identify the arrangements between the parties, to which reference is made in the same subparagraph. Otherwise, the motion was dismissed with costs.